1984-06-21

Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read a third time and do pass.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The tradition on third reading with respect to legislation has been for the Minister who introduces the motion to address the House. In terms of the point of order, I simply want to know whether it is the intention of the Minister to make any remarks on this, or is he going to continue in this arrogance, which I cannot understand, with respect to such important legislation when we have closure imposed upon us. I would like to have some indication of whether there will be some initial remarks. If there will not, our Party is prepared to debate this vigorously during the course of the day.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I agree that there are a lot of traditions and some of them must be followed. Others should be changed. For example, what happened last night was most childish, especially coming from the NDP.
With regard to the request made by the Hon. Member, I do not think that tradition need be followed either. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is free to speak at any time on third reading. If he wants to speak, he will rise and deliver his speech. There is no tradition that on third reading the mover should speak first. That is not true.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My answer to the question is that, in the last few months and especially the last few hours, many of the comments I heard on this Bill were so far-fetched, inaccurate and destructive that I have now decided not to listen a great
deal to the arguments of the Opposition. However, I think most of what was said last night about this Bill was so farfetched it was not worth responding to.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, the House Leader of the Government indicates that he is unhappy with certain traditions. I simply want to say to him that if we could find a way to do today, tomorrow, next week and next year what we did last night and stop this Bill from passing, we would use it. The Bill is so bad, so offensive, and so disgusting in nature that it ought not to pass.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is having difficulty at this point. Are any Hon. Members wishing to be recognized for debate?


Mr. Masters:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the debate, but I would ask unanimous consent of the House to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, which is prepared in both official languages. The subject matter concerns the taxation of visual and performing artists and writers. With the permission of the House I would like to present the report now.


Mr. Speaker:: This can only be done by unanimous consent.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have not been apprised of that intention. While I do not see that there would be any objection, the normal courtesy is to let the Opposition know precisely what the intention is, particularly the Opposition House Leader.
I will take the matter under advisement. Maybe we will be able to meet with the Hon. Member later in the morning to see if we can make some arrangements to look at what he wants to do.


Mr. Speaker:: There does not appear to be unanimous consent for the Hon. Member's request. In the circumstances, he cannot move his motion.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I only want to add a brief remark. I recognize that, and do not wish to take up the time of the House, but to my knowledge there had been an understanding. I would simply request that the matter be looked into.


Mr. Speaker:: It is quite clear that there is not unanimous consent.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, this is the last day of debate on Bill C-9, which is the legislation concerning the Canadian security service. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that we are at what is called third reading stage. If my hon. friends on the government side do not stop talking, I will sit down until they do. I wonder if Your Honour could call for order.


An Hon. Member:: Wake up, Chairman.


John Allen Fraser: It is not my place to call order, Mr. Speaker, but there is too much noise.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: There appears to be too much noise, including a Member who said, "Wake up, Chairman", which is certainly offensive. Members should listen to the Member who is speaking.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, it certainly was not I who made that remark about which you complained. It must have been somebody on the government side.
I was saying that we are here today because this is the last day of debate on Bill C-9. For those who are not knowledgeable about the terms of Parliament, this is what is called third reading. Just so that the public knows what has happened, I think it should be on the record that a number of months ago this Bill was first debated in the House at what is called second reading. That is supposed to be a debate on the principle of the Bill.
At that time the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) said that the Bill contains a legislative mandate which sets out rules which will become law, within which the security service of Canada must operate. It was obvious at that time that the security service of Canada, which has been operating for many years under the aegis of the RCMP, had and needed some extraordinary powers. It was the decision of the Government to mandate those powers into law primarily because, after the revelations of wrong-doing in the early 1970s and late 1960s, it was stated publicly in 1977 in this House that the Government felt there should be such a mandate so such wrong-doings would not happen again. On that, your Honour, there obviously cannot be any disagreement.
The Government also felt that the security service should be removed from the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Government's reasons for this were that almost 14, maybe 15, years ago-certainly as long as 12 or 13 years ago-members of the security service who also were Royal Canadian Mounted Policemen did things they should not have done. Therefore, after the revelations of 1977 in this House, the Government appointed the McDonald Commission.
The McDonald Commission studied the matter for a number of years and it came up with many recommendations,
one of which was that the security service should be removed from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A not very thinly disguised implication was "because you can't trust the Moun-ties".
It was also very clear, however, that what went wrong with the security service under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police back in the early 1970s and late 1960s was that a Prime Minister and various Solicitors General on the government side in the Liberal Party failed to exercise appropriate control over the security service, and failed to ask the most fundamental, ordinary questions that any good commander of any force would ask, and they implicitly told the Mounties to find information and not to discuss with the Government what they would do and how they would do it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I sincerely apologize to my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), for interrupting his excellent presentation, but in light of the fact that unanimous consent was asked on behalf of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications to table a report, I have now had an opportunity of discussing this matter with the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters) and my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Geoff Scott), and I think if you were to seek unanimous consent now consent would be forthcoming to table the report in question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is there unanimous consent to table the report now?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we would be pleased to give unanimous consent. I thought there must have been a breakdown in communications someplace, and I am delighted to see the report table in the House today.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the interruption in the dissertation of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). I thank the Opposition House Leader for his courtesy. We all have communication problems from time to time, even the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, in both official
June 21, 1984

languages, on the taxation of visual and performing artists and writers.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read a third time and do pass.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, what happened in the early 1970s, and it happened partly at least as a consequence of the concerns of the FLQ in Quebec, the Government of the day, was that the Solicitors General of the day, and the Prime Minister of the day, with a wink, a nudge, and a nod, told the Mounties in the security service to go out and find everything they could and "not tell us, the Government, what they were going to do or how they were going to do it". That is an abysmally disgraceful part of the record of any Government of Canada.
I remember well, Sir, hearing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) make a statement when questions were being raised in the House of Commons in 1977 as the revelations came out. Questions were being raised by the Progressive Conservative Party and the other Party in the Opposition, which were being stonewalled by the Prime Minister. The questions were: What has gone wrong? Why can the Government not control illegal actions of the security force? The Prime Minister's notion is one which should be studied by law students for many years to come. His notion was that it was not up to him, that it was not up to the Government, to be concerned with the everyday activities of the security force and that if it did secret, illegal things, the courts would protect us. That was the theory of the Right Hon. Prime Minister, a theory which every first year law student knows is absolute nonsense and any practising lawyer knows is absolute nonsense, because secret, illegal activities will not even get before the courts.
I remind Hon. Members of that, because there was an attitude at the time on the part of the Prime Minister, and apparently on the part of Solicitors General, that in the murky world of intelligence gathering the Government ought not to
Security Intelligence Service
know and certainly did not want to know. As events transpired, when members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police exceeded what was appropriate and proper, they were abandoned immediately by their political masters who should have taken their responsibility.
The point I am making is that the RCMP and the security service of Canada were betrayed by their political masters, and those political masters were Liberals, including the Prime Minister of Canada. It became very convenient to find someone else to blame other than the Government. Finally, as more revelations became clear, the McDonald Royal Commission was set up under Mr. Justice McDonald and two other eminent commissioners.
It is interesting that the McDonald Commission came down with the conclusion that the security service should be removed from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It indicated that members of the RCMP could not be trained properly in intelligence gathering work, that it was impossible for an agency working under the aegis of the RCMP to do the special and sophisticated work required. The Commission believed, for reasons which I never found very logical, that it had to be some kind of special breed of creatures, perhaps born in some distant land, and only they, after special training, were fit for work in intelligence gathering.
Also, it pointed to the abuses which were certainly there for many years. It is interesting that it completely ignored the fact that the RCMP is a very sophisticated police force in crime detection, prevention, and the collection of information with respect to crime. The Commission forgot, as it sat month after month, year after year, in its deliberations, that it was looking backwards, not forwards, and that what it was examining had happened many years ago. It did not seem to occur to them that the difficulty was not with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as such, but the lack of control and the lack of adequate constraints on the part of their political masters. The blame lies squarely with the Prime Minister and Liberal Solicitors General, and to place the blame anywhere else is a cruel and wretched cop-out. This is 1984, and the sins of commission or omission that were complained of happened 13, 14 or 15 years ago.
When I asked the Solicitor General about this security service in committee, this security service which until at least today is still under the aegis of the RCMP and reports to the Government through the Commissioner of the RCMP, I pointed out that all this talk of the new security service under this bill was just not so, that there was nothing new about the security service. After this Bill passes it will be the same people, the same building, same files, same typewriters, and same telephone. All that will change under this Bill is that, instead of an RCMP commissioner, there will be a director reporting to the Solicitor General. Then there will be some consequential changes with respect to pensioners, payment, and internal administration.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
I asked the Solicitor General how, if there was such a desperate need to remove the security service from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the traditions, constraints, and concepts of justice and duty and country which go with that magnificent force, it was getting along all these years since those distant days 13 or 14 years ago when things went wrong. He had to say they were getting along very well with the security service under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. He said the people were very fine people, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was a very fine organization, that his relations with the Commissioner were very good, and that he had nothing but good things to say about the RCMP. That seemed a little strange in view of the fact that the whole reason for getting the security service away from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was because they had had a lot of bad things to say about it.
I asked the Minister, and I quote:
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 which I am sure you would agree meets with your approval. You testified that this has been done in a manner which meets the appropriate sensibilities of the Canadian public. Is that not so?
That was my question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General replied: "Yes, that is so." If the security service today is exactly the same security service which was in existence months and years ago, and which has been operating properly and well, it is very difficult to understand the strange, tortured logic of those who say that the only route to go is to take the security service away from the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
One can say that the attachment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is just emotional, just sentimental. It is a romantic view that the traditions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are such that perhaps there would be more public trust in the knowledge that a secret intelligence-gathering organization fell under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. After all, though, that is all romanticism and this is 1984. There is not much room for that any more.
Let me tell you what another group said about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is an association which is well and favourably known to me and to many others. It is a serious association acting within my province and it concerns itself with the whole question of civil liberties.
When I was a boy growing up, we did not use the phrase "civil liberties" very much. We used another phrase that was well understood, "British justice". It was the tradition that we thought we had brought from the best of the old country and incorporated into our system. Today, the phrase "civil liberties" is used, but then it was justice and it is today justice for individuals living in freedom in this country of which we are speaking.
The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association is an association which is concerned with justice and is understandably and properly concerned with the ever-present potential for abuse in a police system or in a security intelligence system. But it is one which does not have a romantic, sentimental attachment to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or to any police force for that matter. Its purpose is to be skeptical and to be careful in its consideration of police and security services. Therefore, it has no romantic notions about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. A representative of this association had the following to say before the committee:
The second concern deals with the civilianization of the security service. The Senate Committee and McDonald Commission cite essentially two reasons for civilianization. One is that the intelligence personnel of the security agency require different training and abilities from those training and abilities that RCMP officers have and, secondly, the police hierarchy is incompatible with the strict process of review and control that is envisaged for a civilian security agency.
Mr. John Russell, the member of the association who was giving evidence at the time, had this to say:
I think the lie is given to the first item by the fact that the RCMP security section is going to be given over to the new security service.
We are left with the conclusion that either the RCMP does train competent personnel, in this case, or the service will begin its life with unsuitable employees. In our view, we would prefer that the security service, if there is to be a security service, should remain within the purview of the RCMP, where threats to national security are more likely to be placed in a realistic context. That is, they will be assessed in relation to other criminal activity and not isolated.
Your Honour-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair regrets to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his time is up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, it is unlimited time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair will let the hon. gentleman continue for a moment.


John Allen Fraser: I am placed in a difficult position, Your Honour. I had inquired of the Table this morning and I was told that under the rules today I had unlimited time. I do not intend to go on in an unlimited fashion but I had structured my remarks accordingly. I hope I have sufficient time to finish my remarks.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that point of order. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that under the provisions of Standing Order 35(1) which deals with time limits with respect to interventions in debate, the following is the case:
Unless otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, when the Speaker is in the Chair, no Member, except the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, or a Minister moving a government order and the Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister, or a Member making a motion of "no-confidence" ... shall speak for more than twenty minutes-
Accordingly, I would suggest that at third reading stage there is not the constraint of a 20-minute limitation on the person replying on behalf of the Opposition with respect to this legislation. I would suggest that the Hon. Member, as he has indicated, has something further to say. Although he will not
June 21, 1984

abuse the privilege, I know that he would like to complete his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has just been advised along the lines put forward by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). As a matter of fact, the Chair invited the Hon. Member for Vancouver South to continue his remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Listening to the reading of the rule by the Member opposite, it struck me that the Hon. Member speaking was not entitled to unlimited time because he was not speaking in reply to a speech made by a Minister on this stage of the Bill. On the other hand, the Hon. Member did indicate that he had structured his remarks in such a fashion and that he had had some assurance that he would be allowed to complete his remarks as he had structured them. In view of that, Hon. Members on this side have no objection to his continuing.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair has made the decision in any event. Second, the hon. gentleman is not speaking in reply to a speech, he is speaking in reply to the mover of the motion. The Minister moved a motion earlier today. Although he has not yet spoken, he actually moved it and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South is entitled to unlimited time.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my friend, the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), and I appreciate his indication that, whatever the rule may be, there would be no objection to my continuing. I do want to assure the Hon. Solicitor General that I will not be overly long, but I do have more things to say.
We were discussing the question of the removal of the security service from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. In addition to the remarks made by the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association to which I just referred, in which it is clearly stated that in terms of public trust it would be preferable if the security service remained under the aegis of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, others who are knowledgeable had much to say as well. The Attorney General of British Columbia submitted a brief to the Justice Committee, and, among other things, he had this to say:
It seems to me to make a lot more sense to build on the institutional credibility that is already established, to use the umbrella of confidence that there is there, and to direct it and make it an effective security agency and make it an accountable one. I believe the Royal Canadian Mounted Police can be made an effective security police force.
The Attorney General of Ontario on February 7, 1984 had this to say:
But I find extremely unattractive and fundamentally unsustainable the assertion in this legislation that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police would exceed a statutory defined mandate, evade the formal external review mechanisms, thwart Ministerial accountability and abuse its defined statutory powers. The history and tradition of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police suggests very clearly to me that once there is an end to the absence of governmental direction and responsibility, which gave rise to the RCMP wrongdoing, the force will respond willingly and effectively to the wishes of the Canadian people as reflected in the new legislation.
Security Intelligence Service
The Attorney General of Saskatchewan had this to say:
There is no indication, however, that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as it is presently being managed by its senior officers, is not being responsive to the needs identified by Mackenzie and McDonald for flexibility and change.
During the consideration of this Bill, we have argued strenuously that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is getting a bum rap. A lot of people across this country have fallen too easily into the error of forgetting where the responsibility for the abuses of yesteryear really lies. The amazing thing about those who have said that the security service should be removed from the RCMP is that it has never occurred to them that for many years now, as the Solicitor General has admitted, the security service has been operating competently, effectively and properly under the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Solicitor General admitted that only a few weeks ago. Since the abuses of the early seventies and late sixties, it has never occurred to those individuals that things have been running very well and very efficiently. The training has been upgraded. The internal organization has been made more sophisticated. There have been administrative guidelines set down on the security service to ensure that what happened then would not happen now.
Some people have the strange view that unless this legislation is passed today, the security service could again do terrible things. That shows an incomprehensible lack of understanding of what happened in 1977, after revelations were made in the House. At that time everything was tightened up. Senior officials in the security service over the last number of years have ensured that nothing similar to the abuses which happened before could happen again, that view is extraordinary. To suggest that until this legislation is passed there will be continuing abuse does not do justice to the senior personnel who have been in the security service over the past number of years.
That is only one part of this Bill, it is not the main part. The main part of this bill establishes a set of rules within which a security service will operate. At second reading, the Government indicated that when the Bill reached committee, and when Members from all Parties considered the Bill and looked at the individual clauses, then there would be an opportunity to call in concerned citizens of Canada and listen to their suggestions. Then if the Bill appeared to be flawed, if errors were apparent, if it appeared to be inadequate, and if a persuasive case could be made by the citizens who came before the Members of Parliament, of course, that would be the time to put amendments. In the normal course of things, if one is dealing with a responsible government which is sensitive to the fact that this is a democracy and citizens matter-not just bureaucrats, Cabinet Ministers, and Senators who are unaccountable to anybody or anything-and if the attitude is right, amendments are accepted.
In this case, 25 groups and many individuals appeared before the committee. Over 50 briefs were filed. Evidence was given that the Bill was flawed. I am not referring only to the RCMP aspect. Of course, there was evidence submitted

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
regarding that to which I have referred. The committee was told that the language in the Bill was too loose and that the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" had not been properly thought through. Because the language was imprecise, it was suggested that it did not establish adequate constraints on the security service. In particular, Hon. Members who have been paying attention to this legislation will know that subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Clause 2 set out what are threats to the security of Canada. That is the clause which triggers what the security service can do in terms of intrusive surveillance of people. That is just another way of saying that wire-taps, illicit but now legal entry into residences and offices, search and mail opening-all of these things-if the threat to the security of Canada is great enough, become justifiable.
I have said before that it is too easy to talk about the illegality of what the intelligence-gathering security force will be required to do. Under certain circumstances this Bill allows conduct to be legal which ordinarily would be illegal, because of the concern for threats to the security of Canada. Witness after witness appeared before the committee and told us that the Bill was flawed and inadequate. They suggested amendments. Suggestions for amendments were made concerning the definition of threats to the security of Canada. Suggestions for amendments were made with respect to the RCMP and the review committee which would be established under the Bill. That committee would be established in order to ensure that someone was watching the security service because of its awesome power. It was suggested that Cabinet documents, which dealt directly with the security service and which could well contain directions to the security service, ought to be seen by the review committee. It was further suggested that there should be a review committee made up of Members of Parliament in order to achieve greater accountability. It was suggested that warrants for wire tapping should be limited to 60 days, as is the case under the Criminal Code, and not for many months as set out in this Bill.
There were many other suggestions. By the time the Bill reached report stage in the House, the Progressive Conservative Party had amendments for Clause 2, which is the definition section; Clause 3, which would have retained the security service within the RCMP; Clause 12, which dealt with better wording and the duties and functions of the security service; Clause 20, which related to more precise language and direction regarding the alleged unlawful conduct and the consequences thereof of employees within the security service; and Clause 21, which related to the method by which warrants would be applied for and the limitations of time for those warrants. I am speaking now of warrants of intrusive surveillance, wire-tap or otherwise.
We proposed amendments to Clause 22, which would have put more constraint on the renewal of warrants. We proposed amendments to Clause 24 which were designed to clarify the position of an innocent third party who found himself acting on orders for someone, by someone, who was acting under a
warrant. We proposed amendments to Clause 31, insisting that the Inspector General, who is set up under this Bill as part of the review process, would at least be able to see the Cabinet documents which are in the control of the service. We proposed amendments to Clause 38, saying that the review committee should see Cabinet documents. We proposed amendments to Clause 56 relating to the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee. And we proposed amendments to Clause 61 relating to a direction in which the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, who are acting as a consequence of work done by the security service at the federal level, should consult with other police forces at the municipal and provincial level. We had other amendments as well.
I believe Hon. Members would agree that those are substantive amendments which go to the very sum and substance of this Bill. I believe Hon. Members who will remember what was said at the second reading debate by the Solicitor General and by Government Members would agree with me that it is that very kind of substantive amendment at committee stage to which the Government ought to pay attention.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party did not dream up those amendments all by ourselves. We framed those amendments as a consequence of testimony brought in front of the committee by a very wide range of people, including the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association, other civil liberties associations, the Attorneys General of a number of provinces, police chiefs and others. The suggestions which were brought to this committee were not brought with the design to destroy the security service. They were not brought with the design to prevent a legislative mandate for a security service. They were not brought by destructive design. They were brought to improve the piece of legislation which had been presented.
It should be recorded that there was good reason for these witnesses to come before the committee. Following the McDonald report, the infamous Bill C-157 was drafted by the Liberal Government and instead of presenting that Bill, which was the forerunner of Bill C-9 with which we are dealing now, it was presented to a Senate committee, a committee no doubt of distinguished Canadians who were appointed to the Senate, but they do not have to get elected to be there. That Senate committee took a look at Bill C-157 and said, "Wait a minute; this is not a very good Bill". They were very critical of it and the Government sensibly withdrew the Bill.
I would hate to put out the thought, the suspicion, that someone drafted Bill C-157 in extreme terms with the idea of letting a Senate committee have a whack at it, then coming in with another Bill with some less obvious extreme terms in it. I could never prove that, of course. However, I practised law for many years and I used to teach young lawyers that when they are preparing a lawsuit, they start off knowing a lot of things they cannot prove. I suppose today, standing here in this Chamber with Hon. Members, I am very much like a lawyer who has been through a long lawsuit, and I may not be able to quite prove that last allegation; but it fits the piece.
June 21, 1984

So we got Bill C-9. We went to committee and, as I have recorded, Mr. Speaker, many people came in front of us. A lot of things happened at that committee which I am not going to go into now. There were attempts to close off debate. The Chairman of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee, a distinguished Member of this House, was put into an intolerable position by the antics of his own Party and was only just the other day supported by this Party in our nomination that he continue as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. So I want it clearly understood we are not being critical of him. He was put in an impossible situation.
Apart from all that, I have said in this House that no substantive amendments were accepted at committee, and I carelessly at one point said "no" amendments were accepted at committee. I was wrong there and I apologized to the Solicitor General yesterday. However, I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what was accepted at committee was practically nothing. An amendment of my own on Clause 4 changed the words with respect to the term the Director would serve from "good behaviour" to "during pleasure". I am not saying that is not important, but it is not the substance of the Bill. On Clause 12 the committee accepted another amendment which took out some superfluous words, which was a very sensible thing to do but hardly an amendment of substance. On Clause 2 the committee accepted an amendment of a former Solicitor General, Mr. Allmand, which was the same amendment being proposed by both the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and myself, which more precisely modified the word "violence" in Clause 2 by adding the word "serious". That was not unimportant but it hardly went to the very substance of the Bill.
The Government also accepted another amendment which put some limitation, at least, on warrants aimed at subversion; in other words, aimed at domestic activities of Canadians who had not yet committed any crime. But the most extraordinary amendment which was put before the committee was to Clause 39. It was put by myself, supported not only by the Hon. Member for Burnaby but-by accident-one Hon. Member of the Government side as well. That amendment would have allowed the review committee access to Cabinet documents.
Just so there is no doubt on the record when someone comes back and asks what we did with this Bill and why did we not do something proper, it should be made very clear that that was the limit of amendments made at committee. That last amendment, which was substantive, was met yesterday by a counter-amendment from the Government wiping it out.
My point is this. We have been invited to engage in a phony process and I do not believe the Government was ever serious about accepting any substantive amendments whatsoever in committee. The Solicitor General over and over again said: "Well, what is all the fuss about anyway? This whole issue has been debated for years. First there was the Mackenzie Commission in 1969, then the McDonald Commission after the
Security Intelligence Service
revelations of 1977, then its report in 1981. Then there was Bill C-157 which went to the Senate, and then there was the Senate report. My goodness, what is holding it up? Why do you have to keep talking about it?"
This line of the Minister was echoed by some editorial writers across the country. I can understand why, because they are busy people and they have to write editorials every day. They do not have time to see through the smoke and mirrors every day and they miss the point. The fundamental point is that under our system we, as legislators, have to look at the words of the Act in front of us now, not at something that was in the Mackenzie report in 1969, the McDonald report in 1981, or the Senate report a year ago. We have to look at the Bill in front of us.
It astounded me when Members of Parliament who were putting these amendments got advice from some editorial boards and others to stop talking and get on with it. Pass it, they said, because it has all been discussed over and over again. This despite the fact that we had 50 briefs, 25 groups and witnesses in committee, all saying we can make this Bill a lot better and we ought to do it. They do not have to take my word for it; I can quote some editorial boards to support my position. On April 24 The Globe and Mail wrote a thoughtful editorial about this Bill. It said:
Whatever happens. Bill C-9 should not be passed in its current form. While its flaws are less numerous than those of Bill C-157, its previous incarnation, the bill would still grease the wheels of the domestic intelligence-gathering force at the expense of the rights of the public the Government purports to defend.
Agents would still be empowered, with a judicial warrant, to "demand, seize or detain" first-class mail, examine health records and violate the confidentiality of income tax returns. The agents could, with judicial approval, place wire-taps on telephones for 365 days, rather than the 60 days permitted in criminal investigations.
Their actions would be monitored by a review committee which, Solicitor-General Robert Kaplan says, would be independent of the Solicitor-General and the agency and would "be there to blow the whistle on (the agency)." Yet the committee members, who would take an oath of secrecy, could report nothing to Parliament unless the director of the CSIS first certified that their report complied with that oath.
Dealing with its powers, it goes on:
Bill C-9 is too ambiguous in this area. It defines a security threat as, among other things, activity within Canada in support of the threat or use of violence against persons or property to achieve a political objective within a foreign state. This could, without stretching the point, empower CSIS agents to monitor groups raising money to help rebels in Afghanistan or El Salvador, or even, since the phrase is "within a foreign state," the Governments of Nicaragua and Israel. Mr. Kaplan says this would not happen; but then, we doubt many people in the early seventies expected the RCMP would steal the membership lists of the Party Quebecois.
It ends by saying:
As it stands, however, Bill C-9 is not the remedy Mr. Kaplan believes it to be. In its present form, it would only perpetuate the disease.
A more recent editorial in the Vancouver Sun, my city, of Monday, June 18, shows that they were watching carefully what was happening to us in committee. It says:
The government choked off consideration of the legislation by the Commons justice committee after making only a few cosmetic changes. The bill remains the seriously flawed product of a lame-duck administration and should be either thoroughly rewritten or shelved.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
It goes on to say:
But as long as the security Bill makes Canadians insecure, it does not deserve passage into law.
Then I suppose I would be amiss in not quoting Toronto's other voice, as that newspaper advertises itself, the Toronto Sun, a paper which prides itself on taking a pretty hard-nosed view of the world. In an editorial on June 20, 1984, headed "False security", it says:
It's downright criminal that Canada has to meander along another six months or so without a security agency.
But we've done just that for the last eight years or so. We can manage another six months to avoid dangerous legislation-and the bitter taste of closure.
Those comments are in marked contrast to one of the other Toronto newspapers, the Sunday Star, dated April 8, 1984. It asks the question at the head of its editorial: "Why delay security Bill?" It then says:
All in all, Kaplan's legislation is an honest effort to strike the "delicate balance" between collective security and civil rights that a special Senate Committee called for last year. Unless the Tories and New Democrats have a better idea, they shouldn't delay its passage.
The fact of the matter is, Your Honour, that not only did the Tories and the New Democrats have a better idea, those better ideas were proposed by amendments in committee and at report stage, including amendments from a former Solicitor General on the Government side. Those amendments were a direct consequence of listening to some of the most eminent lawyers and civil rights people and others, including the United Church of Canada, who came in front of that committee. But the whole process has been a waste of time. All those people came from across the country at taxpayers' expense, and I see there are taxpayers in the gallery today, and made their suggestions, but none of the substantive ones were acted upon.
The Members of Parliament who made recommendations after listening to the evidence have all been ignored. The process has been cut off with closure. That was the first act this Government took after the election of its new so-called reform leader, Mr. Turner. Why should we be surprised? Mr. Turner was the Minister of Justice when the War Measures Act was brought in, a move which almost every observer today says has never been justified and that whatever had to be done could have been done under the criminal law.


Mr. Blais:: Hindsight.


John Allen Fraser: It was not hindsight. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) sits in his seat and says that what I am saying about the War Measures Act is hindsight. Let me say this to my good friend. I was practising law in the courts when the War Measures Act was brought in. If the Minister thinks there were not common law courtroom lawyers at the time who said it was wrong, that the Government had not justified it and it ought never to have been allowed, the reason must be because the Minister was too young then to know what was going on.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was practising law like you were.


John Allen Fraser: If the Minister was practising law at that time, he was a lousy lawyer. If he had learned anything about the common law he should have known that the War Measures Act did not have justification for its passage. It is clear that no one other than hysterical, ranting people can get up today and try to justify it. It has not been justified anywhere across the country among a critical, intelligent and thoughtful audience. The same man who supposedly reformed the Liberal Party last weekend moved in and closure was imposed on the security Bill.
The Minister wants me to believe that he was a good lawyer in those days. He cannot remember what was wrong with the War Measures Act. I would like to hear the Minister of Defence get up right now and tell us what the reasons were for the War Measures Act. I would like to have him ask his leader to come clean with the Canadian people and tell us what he reasons for the War Measures Act were. He says it is all locked up in the archives and we can look at it after he is dead and gone. That is disgraceful.
Probably to the relief of the Solicitor General, I am coming to the close of my remarks. I want to quote just one more person for the record. Many Canadians know Alan Borovoy. He is the General Counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. That is hardly a left-wing coup group. He said that this Bill is "one of the greatest threats to civil liberties Canada has seen in many years".
My point is that the Bill is flawed and could be a lot better. The Bill is flawed and should be better. The Bill, as it presently stands, leaves the door open to abuse. There is no excuse for that because many amendments were introduced and rejected by the Government which, if passed, would have made this a much better Bill. The whole process has been a sham and a fraud, a waste of time and money.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is an incredible statement! That is an "objective and non-partisan analysis".


John Allen Fraser: In closing, I will say that we have a security service and in a few more days the men and women in it will come under the mandate in this Bill, imperfect though it may be. On behalf of my Party I think it is important to record that we understand the obligations which they have to our country. We understand the importance of their work. We must wish them well in that work and in the continued responsible action which they have exercised for many years. We deeply regret that we did not manage to give them a better Bill which would have secured the liberty of Canadians and given better guarantees against excess or error for the employees of the security service. We want it clearly recorded that we have confidence in them as Canadians. We expect them to do their duty in the very high tradition of that force which helped make this country and which counts for something in terms of duty, loyalty, discipline and patriotism under which the security service has been operating effectively for these number of years. I refer to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
We wish that we could have delivered a better Bill to the security service. For the sake of the future, we wish that we
June 21, 1984

could have delivered a Bill in which Canadians would have more trust. However, we have done the best we could while dealing with a Government which had no real intention of accepting any suggestions from the very beginning of this process. That is the shame of all this. That shame should be recorded and should be pondered upon.


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is completely false.


John Allen Fraser: I hope there will never be a day when someone asks what the Government Members were doing with this Bill and why they did not accept some changes. If that time ever arrives, I hope that the Minister of National Defence, my legal friend, will have thought out the answer he is going to give.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a few remarks at this final stage in the legislative process of what is unquestionably one of the most important Bills to come before this Parliament.
Before commencing my remarks I would like to note that as I entered the Chamber today I was informed that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) had described those of us who have done everything in our power within the rules of this Parliament to oppose this legislation which constitutes such an assault on civil liberties as "parliamentary terrorists". I think it is rather interesting that the Solicitor General would use that description for Members of Parliament who have sought, in good faith, using every vehicle at our disposal, to force the Government to come to its senses and accept changes to a Bill which we view as fatally flawed.
In describing Members of Parliament as terrorists and as having resorted to parliamentary terrorism, the Solicitor General is suggesting that the objectives of the Bill which we are now debating, which the Solicitor General has suggested would include combating terrorism, in his words, may be turned against Members of this House who choose to exercise their democratic right to dissent. By describing opponents of this Bill as terrorists, the Solicitor General in suggesting that one of the primary reasons why we in this Party and Canadians in general are so concerned that if this Bill becomes law, Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever but who engage in dissent or opposition to the government of the day may be targeted by the new security service.
I do not doubt that the Solicitor General genuinely believes that this Bill is a step forward. He believes that the safeguards contained in the Bill are adequate. The reality is that the Government is placing in the hands of the present and future Cabinets, of whatever political stripe, a very dangerous instrument. This Bill could easily be placed in the hands of a totalitarian Government, a repressive military dictatorship. Of course they would not need very many more powers than those the Solicitor General is seeking. He asks us to trust them and says that they will not abuse their powers. But he is asking for a blank check. Given the record of the Government, it is certainly not one that we are prepared to give.
Security Intelligence Service
Hon. Members will be all too familiar with the history of what it was that led to the appointment of the McDonald Commission in 1977. There were revelations of a series of what were not just isolated incidents of breaches of the law but of what amounted to a system of institutionalized disrespect for the law, as clearly documented by the McDonald Commission. Despite the clear and overwhelming evidence of breaches of federal statutes, including the Criminal Code and provincial statutes, there has not been, outside the Province of Quebec, any respect whatsoever for the rule of law in this country.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my friend from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would excuse a brief intervention. I realize that no one likes to be interrupted when making a point and the Hon. Member's point is very important. However, I was interrupted during my speech a couple of times. I thought that courtesy demanded that I rise at this time.
When I was speaking a few moments ago, I got into somewhat of a shouting match with the Hon. Minister of National Defence. It occurred to me after I had left the Chamber that I had referred to him as a lousy lawyer under certain circumstances. I would ask that that be corrected to read "less thoughtful than he ought to have been under the circumstances". I do not want to leave the impression that on a general basis we cast slights of that sort. I would like that on the record.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was indicating before I was interrupted that I believe that the rule of law in this country, which is supposed to be the foundation of our system of law and indeed is referred to as one of the guiding principles of this country in the Charter of Rights, has been undermined by the failure of the federal and provincial governments to ensure that this same law also applies to those who are entrusted with its enforcement.
I do not believe that the political masters of the RCMP security service should escape that judgment because we are well aware of the willful blindness of those political masters. For example, in 1970 the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence was informed by the Director of the security service that they had been breaking the law for 20 years. The Minister of Justice at the time, Mr. John Turner, has no recollection of that.
Immediately after the tabling of the McDonald Commission report, the Solicitor General moved to undermine the essential recommendations of that report with respect to the question of the rule of law and the question of powers which might be accorded to a new agency in a democratic society. Last summer he brought forward Bill C-157 which succeeded in uniting perhaps the most diverse coalition in opposition to any Bill in the history of Canada. The Bill was denounced across the country by provincial Attorneys General, civil libertarians, academics, church leaders and indeed a broad cross-section of Canadian society.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
I regret to say that the one group that unfortunately remained silent about that piece of legislation was the Official Opposition. Let me also note that had they been a little stronger in their opposition to the Bill which is now before the House both in committee and in the House, perhaps it might not see the light of day.


Mr. Thacker:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The record should show that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is daft.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Chair wishes to say that this is not a point of order and it is an unpleasant practice to interrupt another Hon. Member who has the floor.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, any false pretence should always be brought to the attention of the highest court of the land.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It is not useful at all to anyone in the House that someone be interrupted. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills may not appreciate or like what the hon. gentleman is saying, but it is a matter for debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the sensitivity of the Conservative Member, given the failure of his Party to speak out at all on Bill C-157, given their complicity with the Government in the passage of this Bill and given the fact that, even though that Party will have an opportunity to block this Bill in the Senate, I predict the Conservative Party will stand idly by in the Senate and permit its passage there as well. Therefore I am not surprised that spokespeople for the Conservative Party are sensitive when it is suggested that they are co-operating, at least implicitly, with the Government in the passage of this reprehensible legislation.
This is a fundamentally flawed Bill in a number of major respects. The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs heard many witnesses who represented a broad crosssection of the country. I have a couple of telegrams from church groups that I do not believe can be accused at all of extremism but who have deep concerns about the legislation before us. The first telegram is from the Reverend Dr. Clarke MacDonald, Moderator of the United Church of Canada.
Bill C-9 an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service in its present form should not be passed by the 32nd Parliament. Its definitions are too vague and broad. It expands powers of a secretive agency to supervise and interfere with the freedoms of Canadians. It provides inadequate democratic control over the new agency. It opens the way to collaboration with security services of states which are dictatorial or practice gross and systematic violations of human rights. Church and community representatives have detailed the flaws and suggested alternative ways of serving the legitimate security needs of Canadian citizens. We urge you to withdraw the Bill in its present form.
I have another telegram which was sent by the Reverend Dr. Donald W. Anderson on behalf of the Canadian Council of Churches. It states:
Bill C-9 an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service should not be pressed by the present Parliament until: A, It makes clear and rigorous provision for the accountability of the service; 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.
Those are genuine concerns that are deeply felt by members of the church community and I suggest they are the concerns of literally thousands of Canadians across this land.
I have indicated that of course the status quo is not satisfactory. Operating under the sweeping 1975 Cabinet mandate is not satisfactory. We have seen the abuses. I will not go through the litany of abuses once again but I would note, for example, that in pursuit of their mandate they opened some
800,000	files on Canadians.
The wording in the clauses that define threats to security is now so elastic that it covers the list enumerated by the McDonald Commission in connection with the opening of files on millions of Canadians, including union leaders, Communists, friends of Communists, parents of Communists, separatists, native leaders, student leaders, the New Democratic Party, the Cabinet of the Province of Quebec, homosexuals, immigrants and refugees, extra-parliamentary opposition and now, Mr. Speaker, we can add pacifists.

We do not have to remind Canadians of the abuses which have taken place historically. But the question which we must address is whether this Bill is an appropriate and a sensitive response to those abuses. It is our view that the Bill, far from being an improvement on the status quo, represents a very profound threat to civil liberties and should be rejected in its present form.
The mandate of the proposed security service is far too broad. I would note under the definitions which have been proposed by the Minister, which define the scope of the potential targets of this new service, that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever, but who fall within this sweeping and vague mandate, could be subject to all of the most intrusive techniques of the service.
Under the terms of this Bill, a church group, Mr. Speaker, which chooses to send money to the African National Congress to support its liberation movement against a system of institutionalized violence in South Africa, a labour union which wants to support a Central American labour movement struggling against a military dictatorship, could indeed be targeted by this new service. Under the terms of the Bill, those Canadians who wish to protest the testing of the Cruise missile or who wish to protest against the insanity of the nuclear arms race could be targeted if some future government believed they were foreign-influenced. We do not have to look very far south of our border to hear that kind of rhetoric and that kind of suggestion with respect to peace movements in the United States.
Not only are the potential targets for this agency far too broad, but the powers which are proposed are sweeping, indeed
June 21, 1984

are unprecedented in any western industrialized society. No democracy anywhere in the world is prepared to accept the kind of powers the Minister is suggesting this Parliament should accept.
Under the provisions of this Bill the proposed security service would be able, following a traditional warrant in some cases but not in others-and that warrant process we have seen at work in the case of applications for telephone wire taps and we know what a rubber-stamp process that is-to tap the telephones of Canadians, to break into anyone's home, to steal liberally anything from that home and not return it, to look at confidential medical records, confidential psychiatric records, and to have access to journalists' files, to any government record, including income tax records. In short, Mr. Speaker, the service would have access to every nook and cranny of Canadians homes. What a massive invasion of privacy! What a rather ironic fact that these kinds of Orwellian, big brother powers are being proposed to this Parliament and being accepted by Liberal Members of Parliament in 1984!
As well, the placement of informers is countenanced in this Bill without even the minimum safeguard of a warrant or a requirement for ministerial approval.
There is no statutory bar on disruptive or countering techniques despite the fact that Members of this House, the members of the Justice Committee, proposed a motion in terms similar to those contained in other legislation in Australia and New Zealand that would prevent the kind of disruptive techniqus, Operation Tentpeg, Oddball and Checkmate, operations which did so much to bring into disrepute the operations of the security service. This Bill, which is supposed to be providing for safeguards, in many instances is simply making legal what was identified as illegal in the context of the McDonald Commission report.
There is no provision whatsoever for effective parliamentary oversight. There is a watchdog committee that has been gutted of any power whatsoever. It has no access to Cabinet documents in the possession of the security service, no right whatsoever to ensure that all of those players within the intelligence community come under their umbrella so that the Government cannot escape scrutiny by simply shifting responsibility to another agency in the intelligence community.
This Government is not prepared to trust elected representatives of the people of this country with oversight of the operations of the service, despite the fact that the oversight process is functioning effectively in the United States in terms of congressional oversight.
The service would have the power to open first-class mail. The service would have a new and unprecedented power to target any foreigner in this country, even if he or she posed no threats to the security of the country, if it is felt that that person might hurt Canada in the conduct of its international affairs or national defence. Nowhere, Mr. Speaker, is such a power afforded in another country except in the kind of brutal, totalitarian dictatorships which we are supposed to be fighting with this legislation. Indeed, we have received representations from a number of distinguished academics, including the
Security Intelligence Service
Canadian Association of University Teachers and various member groups, pleading with us not to impose this kind of restraint on Canadians and on foreign visitors.
Michael Mandel, Professor of Law at York University, following the tabling of the McDonald Commission report said:
If there is one lesson to be learnt from the RCMP scandal, it is that the Canadian sense of democracy is not adequately developed to resist these kinds of moves. And if they are successful, we may never have the breathing space within which to develop our sense of democracy any further.
Members of this House, Mr. Speaker, look back, as Canadians look back, at some of the blots on our history. We look back to October 16, 1970, the day the War Measures Act was proclaimed. That was a sorry day in the history of this country. The War Measures Act was approved overwhelmingly by Liberal Members and Conservative Members of Parliament. Only the NDP Members stood and said no.
We look back and recall with shame the actions of this Government, of Liberal Governments, in interning Canadians of Japanese origin, confiscating their property and putting them in concentration camps. Historically we look back and say that was wrong. I suggest that our children will look back on this day and say that indeed, this was a dark day for democracy in this country; a dark day for freedom. They will ask: Where were Liberal Members of Parliament as their fundamental rights and freedoms were being eroded? In the name of protecting our national security, the Government brings forward legislation which could ultimately destroy our fundmental civil liberties and privacy. Bill C-9 is an affront to democracy.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise at the end of this amazing democratic process through which we have all struggled once again. We are all somewhat short-tempered as we voted from approximately nine o'clock last night until 5.30 this morning. I am sure we would all agree that sometimes the system seems bad and inconvenient to our wonderful staff who serve the House, such as people in the cafeteria who remained up all night, when the Parties have solid differences of opinion. The strength of the system is that we resolve those kinds of disputes here rather than on the streets.
We are only a thin wedge from being like so many other countries in South America or Eastern Europe that do not have forums in which people can clash, fight and yell back and forth in support of heartfelt positions. It is not a simple process, but it is much better than those of other such countries. As Winston Churchill said at one time, democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others.
I know the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is frustrated with the entire process. He thinks the Opposition is allowed to a much time in which to speak. We lambaste him and sometimes become personal in our remarks against him and his colleagues. By the same token, they call us names which we would not call each other as friends over coffee. However, that

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
is part of the process because we all speak on behalf of our own heartfelt positions, as we gathered them on our mothers' knees and in the parts of the country from which we come.
I think the Minister was somewhat extreme, if in fact it is true that he called the Opposition "terrorists". I do not feel like a terrorist. I feel that I presented a very legitimate perspective on behalf of the culture and the people I represent. Therefore, I do not apologize for one moment. Equally we have called the Minister some ruthless terms.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I was called a traitor by the NDP.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes, that was an extreme. We still have this Parliament. If the new security service is as bad as the NDP believes it is, or if it is as bad in some areas as we think it is, then a future government will have to change it, assuming the improprieties are brought out. I am sure a future Parliament will.
We are now into that broad court of public opinion. The Canadian people will have to judge the Government on its activities, our Party on our activities and the NDP on its activities. The Government has to face and accept some legitimate criticisms. It brought forward the original Bill, Bill C-157, which emanated from the Cabinet and the bureaucracy. It was really an extreme document which polarized Canadians. Then the Government came in with Bill C-9 as a result of the Senate process. It incorporated many improvements to Bill C-157; however, many people were still polarized. They were unable to see the strengthening in Bill C-9. There is no doubt that Bill C-9 is much better than Bill C-157. It is regrettable that somehow the process is not adequate to generate a document which is closer to the Canadian consensus on the first drafting.
We in Her Majesty's Official Opposition found ourselves faced with Bill C-9. At the start, many members of our caucus appreciated the arguments in favour of the civilianization of the security service in comparison with leaving it with the RCMP. Then the witnesses began to appear and those of us who sat on the committee heard their evidence. We could genuinely see that there were still some defects in Bill C-9. Therefore, as a Party we decided that our strategy would be to try to select five or six of the major areas on which we could document the defects with hard evidence. We knew that we could put our arguments and amendments in committee and, if they were not accepted there, that we could appeal to the whole House. We had some success in talking with Government Members privately and at committee stage. I think Canadians will judge our actions in that regard as being fair and reasonable.
I should like to refer to the conduct of members of the NDP. They made a political Party decision which was to be the ultimate in terms of extremism. They decided to fight every clause of the Bill equally. Since the Bill contained almost 100 clauses as well as many subclauses, we were faced in committee with several hundred substantive sections which polarized the situation. I believe Canadians will judge them harshly. There are five or six areas where I am convinced that had it
just been for the Government and the Official Opposition, we could have convinced the Government of the logic of our arguments in favour of these reasonable changes. Perhaps we would have obtained changes to the oversight committee; perhaps we could have juggled around the provision respecting access to Cabinet documents to cover our legitimate concerns as well as those of the Minister, the powers being too wide in subclause 2(d).
Also the Government became polarized when it was faced with the NDP strategy, a publicly acknowledged strategy of fighting every clause equally hard whether or not it was important. Canadians will judge the NDP harshly because it did not protect the interests of western Canada.
I will travel anywhere across the country and debate this matter with any NDP Member of the House, and I am sure I will carry the weight of opinion of western Canadians because they are reasonable people. I think the NDP will come out second best. As so often is the case, members of the New Democratic Party end up hurting the very people they purport to protect. They rise in the House and claim they are protecting and caring for the old people of the country. In 1972, during the minority government with John Turner as Minister of Finance, they started this Government on a process of deficits which has now resulted in inflation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Although it is interesting to hear the record of John Turner and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and how similar they are, I suggest that we are dealing with a security Bill and that there is much to be discussed in that context.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The point is well taken. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) would do well to try to relate his remarks to the Bill.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, just as it did in the debate on Bill C-9, where the NDP claimed to protect people whereas in fact it has injured the legitimate interests of those people, so it is with its claim now that it protects the interests of old people, that the deficit and inflation are destroying those old people and that it protects the unemployed. When it drove out investment, Mr. Speaker, it hurt people far more.
Canadians will judge NDP Members. The polls already show that. The actions of the NDP on Bill C-9 will add to the decimation of that Party. That will be good for Canadians because that Party has perverted the legitimate political process and the method by which people, through their elected representatives, reach a decision on issues. We will return to a period when the NDP will be routed out of this place by Canadians themselves and the political process of resolution will be much more reasonable.
Let me turn to the substance of what we have proposed. The Government felt that the agency should be civilianized. We felt that it should be left with the RCMP. We heard the arguments of the Mackenzie Commission that it was not satisfactory, and we heard the McDonald Commission rein-
June 21, 1984

forcing that position. We looked at some of the evidence and we did not feel it was sufficient. We felt that the RCMP had become very sophisticated in terms of tracking the mafia, drugs and so on. We felt they had sufficient skills and capacity to take on and continue this role.
I speak as one from western Canada where the RCMP is much more a part of our very institution and culture. That is because it is our sole police force. We do not have in Alberta the equivalent of an Ontario Provincial Police or Quebec Provincial Police. Therefore, the RCMP are a part of our lives. They are our friends. We go out with them socially. I have two first cousins who served the country well in the force. It is more a part of us. We feel they could fill that role. The Government does not and it will have to live with the consequences just as we will.
There is no doubt that the Government will suffer in western Canada. It is a tragedy from their perspective politically that their new Leader did not step in immediately and alert them to the fact that they want to get into western Canada, to get some seats back and become a national party. Either he promoted this process or he was not adequately briefed to make a decision. I think he would have been more sensitive.
The Government will be judged and judged harshly across this country on its National Energy Program. It proposed to put in the Constitution a permanent veto for Ontario and Quebec. To be from the regions, to see that being done and to be locked into your future forever is a terrible feeling. That is why separatist parties develop. It is because the Liberal Party has failed in the last few years to be able within its caucus to strike a national consensus. It has also failed on this issue in Bill C-9.
Then we swing into the powers. The Government feels that the powers of the agency are appropriate and necessary. It says that because there is a judicial warrant system, that will be a sufficient check. It feels the Inspector General in combination with the review committee will be a sufficient check and Canadians need not worry. I hope they are right. I hope that our fears are unfounded, even though they are based on the evidence of those such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, parts of the Canadian Bar Association and some civil liberty groups. People who work in the area of human rights all the time have expressed some grave concerns. We in our Party tried to take those concerns and put them into a practical amendment to improve the Bill. Unfortunately the Government did not accept that.
We feel with regard to subclause 2(d), which is the definition of "domestic subversion", that the powers are too wide. When you use in the statute words such as "activities directed toward ... or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada", the words "intended ultimately" can be used by the security service to trigger an investigation of you, Mr. Speaker, me, or one of our constituents who might be part of a church group that is helping some
Security Intelligence Service
freedom group in South Africa, or some group in Poland. Using the wording "intended ultimately", they can trigger that person and use all of these intrusive mechanisms to his or her disadvantage. Once you are triggered they can open your mail, put devices in your car or in your home, get into the records of your doctor or lawyer, and genuinely bear down on you. There is no doubt about that. They are far more broad than in the grand republic to the south of us where they have very real problems with Soviet agents and internal subversion.
We have no trouble going after the KGB under subclauses 2(a), (b) and (c), but (d), where we are dealing with Canadian citizens, is drafted too broadly. I hearken back to the way we treated Japanese-Canadians in World War II. It was not that they were aliens. They were Canadian citizens with Canadian citizenship. Surely Canadian citizenship must mean something.
I am looking at the constitution Act, 1982. I am always struck by the irony of the Liberal Government which stands and proudly proclaims that it brought out the Constitution Act, 1982 to protect the people. They proudly state that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out, subject to reasonable limits. That some Government has brought in this Bill where the intrusive mechanisms have been expanded dramatically from what we had before the Constitution Act. Before 1982 we relied on the ephemeral protections that were fought for by our ancestors in 1215 under the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right in the 1600s and the judicial protections we developed. We had the feeling in this country that we were free to do anything unless it interfered with your right personally, with your property or your fundamental freedom. That was the starting point.
Contrast that with the left-wing regimes where everything is banned unless you are told by statute that you can do it. Hundreds of millions of people in this world operate under that system. You are not free to do something unless the government tells you so. Our system is the opposite. We are free to do anything unless it is prohibited. Some of us are concerned that those limitations are being added and added and added. With all of the federal statutes and regulations, provincial statutes and regulations and municipal by laws, Canadians have lost those fundamental freedoms for which our ancestors fought so hard.
The Constitution Act, 1982 states in Section 8 that everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure. Yet a secret service agent who believes that somebody might be engaged in something which is intended ultimately to get at our government can trigger all of the investigative and intrusive devices that I have mentioned.
I am convinced that the success or failure of this agency will depend to a great measure on how sensitive the Government is in appointing people, in contolling how the Director will hire his agents, in the directions that the Minister gives to the Director of the service and how impartial the Inspector General and the review committee are in reviewing the agency.
That was one of the other amendments we made. Unfortunately, the review committee will be appointed totally by the

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Government only with consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Our belief is that the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) in his official capacity is part of our Constitution. We believe the Leader of the Opposition should have been able to choose one of three of the review committee or two of five. That would have lent genuine credibility to the organization, but the Government refused that.
We know from past appointments to Crown corporations, boards and agencies that too often the Liberal Government has appointed defeated Liberal political candidates and people who work for the Party, ignoring a vast body of Canadians who are not active in politics but have a genuine love for this country and could make a real contribution. If we could rectify that process, the whole thing would be better. The result of a failure of this group is that you and I, Mr. Speaker, will feel less free in our dealings to enjoy our constitutionally entrenched freedom of conscience and religion, less free in our freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, our freedom of peaceful assembly. Our freedom of association will be somehow intimidated by this agency unless the statute is changed or the Government is prepared to be very open and sensible in the appointments of people and its monitoring process. When talking to people from these countries, one finds that there is no doubt that their greatest fear arises not from hunger or famine; their greatest fear arises from the security services of those countries. That is true of both the extreme right-wing governments in South America and the left-wing Marxist and communist governments.
[DOT] (BOO)
People fear a civilian security service that is answerable only to a government. We now have such a service in Canada. Unless Canadians are prepared to monitor it very carefully and to press for changes, there is the possibility that within a generation or two, or perhaps even less, we will find ourselves in a situation in which the people are being intimidated. I hope that never happens.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or debate? Debate.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to review some of the things that have been said in opposition to this Bill. I agree that there is very little new to be said now but I think it is useful to review what has already been said. I will go into detail only on one specific point with which I will deal in due course.
This Bill to establish a security service, which I think can be easily identified as this "police state Bill", will take away the security of the Canadian people. It will not add to our security but will undermine our security. We will be under the pressure and insidious attacks of a group that will no longer be under any serious democratic control. This is in keeping with the conduct of the present Government and the Governments led by that same Liberal Party in previous years. It is in keeping with its fully unjustified and dishonest use of the War Measures Act against Canadians of Japanese ancestry 40 years ago. It is in keeping with its unjustified use of the army against the people of Montreal 14 years ago.
At that time, the then Prime Minister and the now outgoing Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that the War Measures Act would be reviewed and that a better and more just law would be put in its place. He never even attempted to do so as far as can be seen by the public eye. No serious attempt was made to replace or amend the War Measures Act though there have been many requests to do so.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That Party's critic objected very strenuously when Conservative Members began, in their last intervention, to speak of matters other than the Bill before the House. The Hon. Member is now taking off on a long discussion of the War Measures Act, an Act which is not before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I have heard many references to the War Measures Act during the discussion of this Bill. In any event, perhaps the Hon. Member will heed the warning and try to stay relevant to the subject under discussion.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with you that the War Measures Act has been seen as being very relevant to this Bill. This is a kind of civilian version of the War Measures Act and it is in keeping with the past conduct of Liberal Governments that we should now have the War Measures Act translated into a measure that will not be temporary but will be permanent. It will be a big brother Act.
There has been widespread public condemnation of this Bill. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) read at length from editorials in the Toronto Globe and Mail and The Toronto Sun. Neither of those newspapers are ever accused of being left-wing or subversive, so far as I know, except perhaps when they poke at each other. The gist of those editorials was that this Bill ought not to be passed in the form which the Government has insisted it must keep and cannot change. Both newspapers indicated that it ought not pass and that the status quo, bad as it is, would be preferable to life under this Bill. That was the gist of the editorials in The Globe and Mail and The Toronto Sun.
Those editorials described three general complaints about the Bill, complaints which have been made by witness after witness, in letter after letter, by public personage after public personage. The definition of the target is too vague. I will not go into that complaint in detail, but in fact the definition casts far too wide a net. The amendment proposed by the former Solicitor General that would have narrowed the target and made it more acceptable to the public was rejected by the present Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
The means that are proposed to be used to legalize power in the hands of the new secret service are far too broad, particularly for use against dissidents or people who disagree with government policies. These people are to be harassed as though they were criminals, as though they were already enemy
June 21, 1984

agents. They are to be harassed in that way without any evidence that they have earned that harassment in cases where they are expressing and promulgating views with which this Government is uncomfortable.
In my opinion, the most serious complaint that has been made is that there is no effective parliamentary review of this service. The Inspector General is not an appointee of Parliament; he is a creature of the government of the day. He is answerable only to the Minister. He is not answerable to Parliament. He may confer a report upon Parliament but it will not contain anything that the secret service does not want it to contain. Such information that it does not want to disclose will be called information that is restricted by security.
The Bill makes provisions for a so-called review committee which again is not answerable to Parliament. Members of this committee will be appointed exclusively by the Government with perhaps a show of consultation with leaders of the Opposition Parties. However, there is no requirement that Leaders of Opposition Parties give their approval to the appointments, nothwithstanding the false statement made yesterday to that effect by the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen).
This is probably the most serious part of the Bill. It is this part of the Bill which, had it been corrected, had the Solicitor General been willing to accept the amendments of his own colleague and predecessor on this point, would have caused many people who are unhappy with the Bill in many other ways nevertheless to be inclined to say that the Bill was one with which they could live. However, the Minister has insisted absolutely that there will be no shadow or trace of parliamentary control over this service, over the review committee or over the Inspector General.
The Solicitor General has behaved very strangely and very irresponsibly with regard to this matter. He does not like me to say so because he feels that an Anglican priest should not call him irresponsible. However, the information he gave us last night flies directly in the face of the information that was documented before the committee on which he sat. He has now run out of the House because he is afraid that the facts will be put before Parliament while he is present and perhaps he will not be able to avoid blushing.
Last night the Solicitor General made the extraordinary statement that the committees of the Congress and Senate in the United States have less power to require evidence and information about what the secret service is doing than the committee proposed by this Bill. That statement was extraordinarily false. When 1 challenged him on it, he kept interjecting. I am sorry that Hansard is not yet available. I would like to be able to quote him precisely. He kept interjecting by saying that the statements I was making were not true. I said that the Congressional committees can call any witness and require any document to be brought forward. He said that that was not true. I have before me the Compilation of Intelligence Laws, Related Laws and Executive Orders of Interest to the National Intelligence Community as Amended through March 1, 1983, Prepared for the Use of the Permanent Select Com-
Security Intelligence Service
mittee on Intelligence of the House of Representatives of the United States of America. Their director, Mr. Simmons, appeared before our Justice Committee and was interviewed extensively about his work. The document which set up the select committee in the United States reads as follows:
SEC. 5(a) For the purposes of this resolution, the select committee is authorized in its discretion (1) to make investigations into any matter within its jurisdiction, (2) to make expenditures from the contingent fund of the Senate, (3) to employ personnel, (4) to hold hearings, (5) to sit and act at any time or place during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned periods of the Senate, (6) to require, by subpoena or otherwise, the attendance of witnesses and the production of correspondence, books, papers, and documents, (7) to take depositions and other testimony,
I underline the relevance of paragraph (5), Mr. Speaker.
The Senate and Congressional committees have the powers which I have read from this American document of legislation. Americans exercise those powers, as we saw a few weeks ago when the wrongdoing of the CIA in the mining of harbours in Nicaragua was exposed. They hauled the director of the agency before the committee and they bawled him out. Barry Goldwater, who is vice-chairman of the committee, expressed himself in language which I suppose would be considered unparliamentary.
What are we to do about a Solicitor General who stands in his place and boldly denies facts which have been placed in testimony before the Justice Committee? If an ordinary Member of this House expressed such ignorance, we would suppose that he had not been doing his homework. If a member of the Justice Committee who heard Mr. Simmons speak expressed such ignorance, we would wonder if he had attended the committee meetings. The Solicitor General, the person who has expert advice at his beck and call, who brags that he sat through the committee hearings and heard all the testimony, who says he is very weary of answering questions, and who says "Trust me", last night stood in his place and roundly denied facts which were placed in evidence before the committee in which he sat.
We could, of course, ask why the Solicitor General should so mislead the House. I would not suggest at this time that he was deliberately misleading the House. Frankly, I find it astonishing that he would think that he could get away with that. The only other alternative would be to suggest that the Minister closed his mind several years ago and does not let anything enter it except what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the new Leader of the Liberal Party puts into it. He did not listen to the testimony which was placed before his committee. He does not listen to anything he does not want to hear, or he allows it to go in one ear and out the other without any interference between the ears.
At any rate, the Minister is asking us to believe that he does not know that the committees of Congress and the Senate in the United States, which are made up of ordinary elected representatives, can review the budget in detail of all the intelligence agencies in the intelligence community. Those committees can review all of the appointments which they wish

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
to review. Those committees can call any person to appear before them and require that that person bring the information which they want.
Another document which was filed with the committee was the report to the Senate of the United States of the Select Committee on Intelligence for the period covering January 1, 1979 to December 31, 1979. It reads:
The general principle embodied in these provisions is that all the information that the oversight committees require will be provided when the committees require it and in the detail that the particular occasion demands.
There is no limitation, qualification or suggestion that Congressmen and Senators are not fit when they undertake the appropriate oath of secrecy to review what the appointed and hired public servants of the government have been doing. The Minister cannot bear to hear the contrast between the freedom and responsibility which is exercised by the committees of the American Congress and Senate and the childish impotence and phoneyness which he wants to enforce on Members of Parliament and Senators for whose vote he is asking in order to give him the power to set up this petty little dictatorship.
It is bad enough that this bill is being rammed through by some of the extraordinary perversions of procedure which the House has witnessed on the part of the Government in the past two weeks. However, it is alarming that we have a Solicitor General who is so astonishingly ignorant of the very matters for which he has achieved responsibility in this land. If we are to believe that he was not willingly trying to mislead us, he must be disastrously ignorant.
In conclusion, I would like to read two telegrams which I received from people in Toronto with regard to this Bill. I received a telegram from Mr. Y. Forgang which reads as follows:
What is subversion? If a subversive is someone who agitates for social change, those people should be elected, not harassed. I am amazed and angered by Bill C-9.
I received another telegram from S. Perston which reads as follows:
It is far too easy to label someone who is lobbying for social change a "subversive". Bill C-9 does not offer Canadians greater security, but rather creates opportunity to harass.
That is the opinion shared by many Canadians across this land that this Government refuses to listen to. Within the rules of parliamentary procedure, we must only suppose that we have a Solicitor General who is invincibly ignorant about matters of true security, the very matters on which he is asking us to legislate.
We do not know who drafted this legislation upon which he is adamantly insisting. We do not even know if it was drafted by Canadians, since it contains provisions for putting the security service into contract with unnamed foreign powers while it has no continuing obligation to this Parliament. We do not know on whose orders the Solicitor General has imposed this Bill. What we do know is that he has shown himself completely unable to answer simple questions of fact regarding the powers which are possessed by the American Congress and
Senate, powers which he has denied to the Canadian Parliament and Senate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments. Are there any questions or comments?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to preface my question by saying that I believe the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) should be commended by Hon. Members of this House-indeed, I know he will be commended by his constituents-for the untiring fight he has personally waged against this repressive piece of legislation. When history is written on this Bill it will certainly show that the Hon. Member for Spadina played an outstanding role in committee and in this House in helping to fight this repressive piece of legislation.
I certainly would be most interested, in the context of the question of congressional oversight, to know the extent to which senior Senators are prepared to chastise inappropriate behaviour on the part of members of the intelligence community. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Spadina might be a little more explicit as to precisely what it was that Senator Goldwater had to say with respect to the operations of the CIA on the mining of the harbours of Nicaragua.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member, in the limited time which is at his disposal, could perhaps comment on some of the concerns he already has expressed very eloquently in other forums on the impact that this legislation may have on refugees and political refugees from other countries such as Chile, El Salvador and elsewhere. Could the Hon. Member comment in the context of the immigration provisions, Mr. Speaker, as well as in the context of general concern about these refugees having fled from one police state to come to a country in which this kind of repressive legislation is being put forward? I would like to hear from the Hon. Member for Spadina, Mr. Speaker, both with respect to the question of congressional oversight and the nature of the frank and candid exchanges between the elected representatives and the senior officials of the service, and with respect to the implications for political refugees, in particular.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the refugees does concern me very much. I have had occasion in the last three years particularly to meet with a good many refugees, especially from Latin America, and with a good many Canadians serving refugees such as those in the Interchurch Committee for Refugees. There is great ground for concern about the present activities of the RCMP in relation to refugees from some of the Latin American dictatorships such as El Salvador and Chile. People from those countries who have been established here for several years, landed immigrants, some of them citizens, have been quizzed at their homes about their associates here and back home. It is very disquieting, Mr. Speaker, to them, and to many of us, to think that the RCMP would be gathering information about the associates of those people
June 21, 1984

here and back home since the only likely purpose for doing so would be to pass on the information to the dictatorships of El Salvador and Chile for the purpose of further repression in those countries.
Refugees who have come here, not only from those countries but from Eastern Europe and Southeast Asia, are very uneasy about the activities of secret police. They have had too much experience with them in their homelands to feel easy about them. The broad and unsupervised powers being given in this legislation are going to be a very great worry to everyone who was born in another country, but especially to refugees.
With regard to the oversight of the Senate committee, the only information I have is that at the time when the newspapers brought out the fact that, indeed, the CIA had directed the mining of the harbours in Nicaragua, the vice-chairman of the committee, Senator Goldwater, said that the committee was supposed to be given advance notice. This is, in fact, contained in the very documents which were put to our committee here by the representative of the United States security service. These are the very documents which the Solicitor General now cannot remember, apparently. Senator Goldwater said he had not been given that advance notice and his expression publicly, Mr. Speaker, was, "I am pissed off with the service".


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) just now when he put a question to the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap). In the preamble to his question, he mentioned the important role played by the Member for Spadina in committee. Now, I attended each and every sitting of the Committee, and I do not remember hearing the Member for Spadina. Perhaps he could tell us how many times the Hon. Member intervened in committee? How many times did he comment on the Bill? Could he inform the House whether his presence at the Committee was for the sole purpose of helping the Member for Burnaby when he started his filibuster, which lasted about five or six hours?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, the point of the questioner is well taken in the sense that I was not present at the committee for the purpose of intervening. I was present at the committee, however, for the purpose of learning what the committee was doing and, for example, observing the behaviour of the hon. gentleman who has just asked me the question. And I must say his behaviour indicated to me that he had stopped thinking many months ago about this subject and was simply there to ram this Bill through regardless of what anyone might say.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would be interested to hear the response of the Hon. Member as to why the New Democratic Party decided to fight every clause with equal vehemence when there were only four or five clauses which were substantive in affecting the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It seems to me
Security Intelligence Service
that that action minimized its case and resulted in the Government becoming polarized so that we could get no action at all.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, what happened in the committee was that after the Liberal representative tried to close off debate, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) responded with a filibuster. That was when he introduced, as I understand it, amendments to every clause in the Bill. If the Government had not polarized the situation by insisting there would be no changes to the Bill, it might have been possible to pursue a very different approach and to focus not only on just five or six clauses. There are a lot more than five or six parts of this Bill which are bad. There are probably three general areas which are the worst. However, since the Government made clear from the outset of the committee's deliberations, after the witnesses had been heard, that it was not going to listen to anyone, that is to say, that Government Members were going to sit there like bumps on a log with either their ears closed or their minds turned off and simply vote as the Solicitor General directed them to vote, then it was necessary to draw to the attention of the public-and this was successfully done, Mr. Speaker-just what kind of dictatorial practice was being followed by the Government. It was only after the public became aroused that the Hon. Member who just asked me that question, and some of his colleagues, began to feel that if they did not begin to hustle around and oppose some parts of the Bill, they would be exposed for conniving with the Government is passing the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the
ten-minute period for questions and comments. Continuing debate.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, all legislation, if it is going to be successful in a country, must have the confidence and the trust of the people. Any legislation that the people do not trust, particularly if they do not trust the administration, causes difficulties in a country.
We have come to the point now where we are in the last stage of passing this Bill. Judging from what has happened so far the Bill will be passed later on today by the Liberal Government with opposition from all other sides of the House. Since it is going to become law, then we as Canadians have to do our utmost to make the Bill successful. Surely none of us wants subversion and fifth columnists. We are not going to be quitters, like the former Minister of Finance and Prime Minister designate who went back to Bay Street to practise law for ten years. We are going to see it through. I think that is our responsibility.
I was delighted today with the splended address by our critic, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and his chief lieutenant, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). Both gave knowledgeable addresses, outlining in a fair way why we oppose the Bill.
I have to say that none of us has a monopoly on loyalty or integrity. That is one of my biggest complaints, if you can call

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
it that, concerning the NDP. They seem to think that they have a monopoly on wisdom, loyalty, goodness and honour. Well, none of us has. We are all citizens of the same country, even though we may be members of a different Party with different outlooks. We should all be sincere enough to realize that each of us is trying to improve the country in our own way. I will never be a socialist. I have no use for communism or socialism. I respect those who think that type of system can make Canada a better country; therefore I am prepared to listen to the Hon. Members of the NDP. But when they make charges which are so completely wrong and unfair that anyone can tell it is being done for political purposes, then I cannot go along with that.
For example, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who is a sincere young man, said this morning that the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Conservative Party had helped the Liberals to pass this Bill. How can anyone say that when the Hon. Member for Vancouver South and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, indeed the whole Party, have been endeavouring to make the Bill a better Bill? We have advanced the things our people asked us to advance. Members of the NDP should respect that. I think the Hon. Member for Burnaby, when he is a few years older, will realize how ridiculous it is to think that every single clause in this Bill is wrong. No Bill could be that wrong, even this one. That is why I wish the NDP would attempt to be fair and recognize that other people have points of view.
That is what we are going to endeavour to do with regard to this Bill. If it becomes law, then the things we have pointed out will either prove to be true or not true. That will depend largely on who administers the Bill, on the attitude of the Director, the Government and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). If they take a wholesome attitude and say they are going to make sure that the interpretation of this Bill is not going to be as wide as it can be, then it may work out without too much difficulty. However, whether it does or not, we are going to be stuck with this legislation, stuck with the civilian intelligence service. Therefore, in the interests of this country I think we have to say that while we prefer the RCMP because we think they could do a better job, we will have to give this new intelligence service our co-operation.
We do that for three reasons, which reasons are set out right in the Bill. I refer to the threat to the security of Canada in the interpretation clause of the Bill. Whether it is the RCMP or this civilian agency, these three things are paramount to the interests of the security of Canada. The first is that:
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
That is a very serious threat to the security of a country. One of this agency's main jobs will be to watch for that. Then the next one is:
(b)	foreign-influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
I do not want to be in a position where people come from other countries to threaten me, my family of friends. None of us do. We do not want foreign influences coming here to subvert us. We want to run our own country. But they could come here. Spying is not something new. Spies are found in every country. Every country has its fifth columnists so we have to be aware of that. Thirdly, we have:
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state,-
There you have the three very serious threats that this intelligence service is going to have to watch. None of us would support such type of activity. I come from a coal mining town. Certainly the communist element is very evident and conspicuous in coal mining areas. Our society is so free and we are so tolerant that communists can organize and endeavour to disrupt the entire country. The objective of a communist is world domination. He believes in the government telling everybody what is good for them and he will work towards that end. But when he starts interfering with our system and threatening the property of our people, then that is a different thing altogether. For those reasons we have this intelligence service and we have to hope they will keep these saboteurs and fifth columnists in check.
The next definition of a threat to the security of Canada is a little more worrying. If it is not watched very carefully it could become a very serious threat to the liberties of the Canadian people. This is what it says:
(d)	activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
We in Canada have the right to work for the type of Government we want. Sometimes I think we have gone too far. We allow people in the country who want to have a complete communist, Nazi or fascist government in the country. I do not think that 90 per cent of the people of Canada want such types of governments. We do not want them to start using so much influence that we eventually get those kinds of governments. We believe in a democracy where people are elected and are responsible to the people who elect them. As I have said many times in the House, one of the major principles of democracy is that we reflect the thinking of the people who elect us. We do not tell the people what is good for them. That is my biggest argument against the present Government. It is forever telling the people what is good for them instead of reflecting the thinking of the people in its legislation and administration. That is contrary to democracy.
Some Liberal and NDP members have gotten up in the House and said that they give leadership to their people. At least 80 per cent of the people in my riding want capital punishment reinstated. I have heard Liberal and NDP members of the House say that they give leadership. They do not do what their people ask them to do. Consider that for a moment. Could that be considered by this committee as being "directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed
June 21, 1984

toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction ..."? It is certainly not a democratic principle to tell people what is good for them.
We must be very careful with this type of language. The language is too loose. It is going too far. The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills referred to the phrase "intended ultimately". Is this committee going to have the power to see into the future to see what you are aiming at? I told the story the other day about one of the strikes in the Drumheller Valley. One big union, OBU, was determined to overthrow the United Mine Workers of America which is a good union. They carried out sabotage. They threatened to burn down houses. They shot a man near a washhouse. They threw rocks at cars. They burned a house just a block away from our house at the old Newcastle mine. That was going too far. That was sabotage. They were trying to replace part of the operation of administration in the country. There was not any action taken on it. I am wondering if this section is going to be used in the wrong way. I urge the Solicitor General to watch this very carefully. That could be used by a Nazi, communist or fascist government because people are working towards a democracy.
These are some of the reasons I feel we have to now examine the civilian agency and make the best of it. This Party worked hard at the recommendations which it made. I admire the fair, honest and excellent way in which our critics, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South and Lethbridge-Foothills, advanced our cause with regard to keeping the RCMP as our security service. The RCMP has been our security service through the years. Even the Attorney General has admitted that it has done a good job. I want to pay tribute to the RCMP security service.
The son of an excellent Canadian of Chinese origin in Edmonton was trained in that intelligence service. He joined the RCMP and had training in policing. He had training in intelligence too. He became a very excellent man. When he heard that they were going to move all the RCMP into the intelligence service, he asked for a transfer. He said he wanted to be a policeman. He loved the intelligence service part under the RCMP. He said that he wanted to continue to wear the uniform and had dedicated his life to being a policeman. Now he is stationed in Alberta doing an excellent job in one of the detachments there.
People cannot tell me that the RCMP do not train their people. It amazes me when they claim something like that and then they say they are going to take that whole RCMP section and make it the foundation for the civilian service. They will take their uniforms away but use all their brains and training as the foundation of this civilian service. That is one thing which I think is in favour of the civilian service.
The civilian services of Britain and the United States have shown that they are prone to spies and fifth columnists. They can get in there and get a highly specialized education. They can have doctorate degrees by the score and become highly educated and trained in that type of thing. It has been proven in Britain and the United States that their training was there, but as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Security Intelligence Service
Chretien) said the other night, their heart was not for their homeland. Their heart is for another country and they become a fifth columnist within our country. When you get a fifth columnist in the civilian intelligence service; beware. I say beware because they can do a tremendous amount of damage and harm.
Many people wonder about the term "fifth column". That originated during the Spanish war. Franco was going to march into Madrid and, as he was marching in, said that he was going to overthrow the government with five columns. He said that he would have four columns marching in with him and that he had a fifth column in the city already. Therefore, the fifth column refers to people who are going to destroy the very thing which they should be supporting or trying to change rather than overthrow.
We wanted to have more accountability, and not only to the Solicitor General and the Governor in Council who appoint the review committee. I see, Mr. Speaker, you are indicating my time is running out. May I have just two more minutes? I am only a third of the way through; I guess I will have to talk in a hurry.
The review committee is appointed by the Government. We should have an overview committee to enlighten Members of Parliament. Every section of this service should be accountable to Parliament. As Members of Parliament we are then accountable to the people who elected us.
I wanted to deal with some of the powers which are given to this committee. It may examine medical records, break and enter, look into income tax files and medical records and open your mail. There is one safeguard. They must go to a court and get a warrant from a judge. I think some of the warrants are too long in duration. Our Members dealt with that. There are some items there to protect.
In closing, I have three major objections to this Bill. My first objection concerns the attitude of the Government in refusing almost every amendment. It is the wrong attitude for a democratic government to take. My second objection is that closure was introduced on us almost as soon as the Liberals had a new Leader. That will be seen with suspicion by the people of Canada since it is the same Leader who brought in the War Measures Act. Third, we must be very wary that this service does not harass ordinary citizens of Canada who are honest, upright citizens with integrity and loyalty to this country. We must ensure that they are not harassed, and if they are because their views differ from the government of the day, it will be time for the people of Canada and whatever government is in power to review this civilian agency.
In the meantime, let us hope that it works and keeps the fifth columnists and saboteurs out of this country while not harassing everyday, honest Canadians.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde).


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member informed the House earlier that he was against creating a separate civilian service. When the Senate Committee chaired by Mr. Pitfield made its recommendations, the Committee was unanimous on this issue, with the exception of Senator Kelly, a Progressive Conservative Senator who objected to separation. All other senators were in favour of creating a separate civilian security service. Am I to understand that the Progressive Conservative Senators who spoke out in favour of creating a civilian service were expressing views opposed to the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party and the Caucus?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Mackenzie and the McDonald Commissions recommended a separate service. However, in my view, those recommendations were made without any basis for comparison. They simply found that there was something wrong with the RCMP intelligence service without saying what should be corrected. They recommended the creation of a civilian service. Perhaps the same thing will be wrong in that service along with many other inadequacies.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that I am here to represent the people of my constituency, not the McDonald Commission and the Mackenzie Commission. I am satisfied that close to 75 per cent of the people want the RCMP to remain as the intelligence service. The Hon. Member can use all the arguments he likes about the big shots. To me, the big shots are the people who elected me and sent me here. Those are the people I intend to represent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: A supplementary for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, this has no connection with the MacKenzie or McDonald Commission. Bill C-157 was tabled during the previous session and examined in the Senate Committee.
My question earlier was: Did the Progressive Conservative Senators who spoke out in favour of creating a civilian security service at the sittings of the Committee chaired by Mr, Pitfield, say they were opposed to the position taken by the Progressive Conservative Party or Caucus? That was the first part of my question and I would like an answer.
Second, the Hon. Member informed the House earlier that the Government refused to accept any amendments. Will the Hon. Member acknowledge that since Bill C-157 was tabled, at least fifty amendments have been tabled, approved and considered in Committee, by the Government?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member on the Government side who just spoke said that since Bill C-157 was introduced, 50 amendments have been tabled. I think it is incumbent upon the Member to explain just what he means, because 50 amendments have not been tabled on Bill C-9, which is the Bill that is in front of us.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not see that as a point of order, but a point has been made.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is criticizing his own Government. It brought in a Bill that was so loosely and poorly drafted that it had to be withdrawn. Furthermore, there was not even enough time to thoroughly review that Bill or to determine what our constituents felt about the Bill.


Mr. Reid (St. Catharines):: It went to the Senate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, it went to the Senate. If the Government introduced its Bills in an appropriately drafted manner so that it would not have to withdraw them and reintroduce another Bill, we would have much better legislation. His comments are criticizing his own Government and I commend him for that.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). It relates to comments he made about the new Leader of the Liberal Party who is either unaware of what is before us or is condoning what is before us. Could he explain exactly where he believes Mr. Turner stands with respect to this legislation as far as closure is concerned and with respect to the principles involved as well. Is it the Member's belief that Mr. Turner is adhering to these principles and actually condones them?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Before giving the floor to the Hon. Member for Bow River, I should mention that the questions are supposed to be directed to the remarks that the Hon. Member has made in his speech. I do not see the question as being appropriate.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, almost before the convention was over the new Leader had closure introduced on this Bill. His record with respect to the War Measures Act is not good. He is an experienced parliamentarian and as Leader of the Party and future Prime Minister he knows that he is responsible for the legislation before the House now. If he did not want this Bill to pass he could have told the Solicitor General to drop it and it would have been dropped like a hot potato.
I am satisfied that the new Leader of the Liberal Party was well aware that closure was being introduced and that he wanted it introduced because he is in favour of this Bill. If he is not in favour of it he is a very strange leader. Furthermore, he talked about such things as free votes in the House. His first act was to bring in closure. The people of Canada look at his record of deficits-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I am afraid I have to tell the Hon. Member that the discussion is irrelevant.
June 21, 1984


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Bow River served for over 20 years in the Legislature of the Province of Alberta. He came to power in the province during the Depression years when the provincial government was bringing in statutes to try to save its people from the Depression, when three out of four had to leave the land and bankruptcies were rampant. Part of this Bill permits the Attorney General of Canada to take over the prosecution of offences in the security area. Would the Hon. Member share his views with the House about how that will affect that delicate balance between the federal and provincial governments?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent question. It brings to the foreground the fact that provincial governments are elected by the people of the provinces. The Attorneys General of those provinces should be kept informed about items such as this. In fact, one of our motions was to keep our attorneys General informed. We are in serious difficulty if matters are so determined to the future of this country that the Government cannot even inform our attorneys general in the provinces. We even had a method for keeping them informed.
The success of this country will depend on the co-operation between the federal Attorney General and the Attorneys General of the provinces. We must remember that the Attorney General and the Attorneys General of each province are elected by the people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Royal Society of Canada announced not long ago that it wanted to establish a National House of Academics in the vacant building formerly occupied by the Teacher's College, on the corner of Elgin and Lisgar, in Ottawa.
The Royal Society, which was founded by the Government of Canada in 1882, would like to bring under the same roof all our national scientific and cultural institutions and associations, to facilitate the sharing and exchange of ideas and resources. There is no centre of this kind in Canada, unlike other developed countries. The Royal Society feels it is time that Canada, like most of the world's civilized countries, had its own National House of Academics.
Teacher's College, now the property of Public Works Canada, has been empty since 1978. Now that the July 15 deadline for termination of negotiations between Public Works Canada and the City of Ottawa for renting the property is drawing near, I would like to suggest that this House support Dr. Alexander Mackay, President of the Royal Society, in urging the federal Government to assign Teacher's College to the Royal Society, on a rental basis, so that it may become Canada's "National House of Academies".


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and through him the Government, will be aware that the farm community of southern Ontario and, by extension, all agriculture, were dismayed at the actions of the Province of Quebec last year when it refused tomatoes and other product from Ontario in litre containers.
The federal Government has, we know, passed the appropriate regulations for use in Canada of the four litre containers, and the Province of Ontario has provided certain guarantees for container cost subsidies, but the Province of Quebec to date has not passed implementing regulations, and the season will be fast upon us.
Undertakings to study will not allow the free movement of product, and in the end the farmers will be those who will be made suffer through packing products for which they will not be paid. This is clearly unfair and unacceptable.
The time has come for trade between provinces to be unhampered by artificial barriers, and if necessary the Minister must convoke a meeting of his Ontario and Quebec counterparts in order that a political will be developed and enforced, such that the necessary regulations will be put in place before the shipping season commences.
At a time when Canadians should be pulling together and Canadian markets should be shared openly and fairly so as to create more jobs through increased productivity, no stone should be left unturned in our search to remove restrictive trade barriers within Canada.

We should explain to Mr. Garon that by opening the market to Ontario products, he is helping Canadians from Quebec who are trying to find jobs in Ontario through the federal Department of Employment and Immigration.

We are one country. Let us find the means to act like it.

June 21, 1984



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, perceptive Canadians will have noticed something of considerable impact over the last several weeks. With the Liberal Party in disarray, divided and squabbling among itself, with a lame duck Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has lost interest in government, and a new Leader who seems more interested in milking the last few dollars from his corporate directorships than in taking over the reins, it is the Official Opposition that is assuming, even now, the role of government and conducting itself in the responsible and competent manner expected of a Government, but which is so sadly lacking with the Liberals.
For example, just yesterday when Mr. Turner was pontificating over how many non-elected bodies he should co-opt into his Cabinet, it was the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) who was in Washington, preserving jobs for Canadians in our threatened steel industry, and fighting against the hazards of acid rain.
Canadians are realizing that even before the next general election it is the Conservatives, not the Liberals, to whom they should look for leadership in conducting the affairs of the nation.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement under the provisions of Standing Order 21 and ask this Government to consider the disastrous effects of textile and clothing imports which seem to be out of control, with or without quotas. This is causing serious harm and creating an intolerable situation. The closing, announced yesterday, of Celanese Canada Limited in Coati-cook, in my riding, is not only a social and economic tragedy for the employees who will lose their jobs, but also a very real disappointment, first to the employer, considered to be progressive because of investments in modernizing a plant which, unfortunately, has been losing money since 1982, and an even greater disappointment to the workers, especially since they had made every effort at the right time to get through the slump in the textile industry and the economic recession.
The people are asking the Government to do what can be done to protect their jobs or give them new ones right away, because the only thing these workers want is to keep their jobs. If they cannot, they feel the Government should create new ones, since uncontrolled imports are one of the immediate causes of the lack of sufficient markets.



VISIBLE MINORITIES


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in announcing its response to the report on visible minorities yesterday, the Government has taken the first step in dealing with the Japanese Canadian compensation issue. It did acknowledge the injustices done to Japanese Canadians in World War II and its aftermath. It did acknowledge the suffering caused thereby. However, it is only a first step, and in announcing only a very general fund to combat racism it has not dealt adequately with the complex issue of compensation.
Now is the time for Parliament to act, and there still is time before the end of the session. Parliament should spend one hour addressing this issue with all-Party support. There should be a motion acknowledging these injustices, and an opening of the door to compensation with proper negotiations with duly elected representatives of the National Association of Japanese Canadians.
Further, Mr. Speaker, it is important that there be a re-examination of the War Measures Act, the legislation that enabled these injustices to happen in the first place. It is not enough to say that now that we have a Charter this will not happen again. These injustices did occur in the United States, which has an entrenched Charter, and we have to work to change the legislation that permitted them in the first place. The Japanese Canadian community expects no less from Parliament, that Canadians, representatives of all Parties, speak on this issue. We will not have justice in the future until we recognize the injustices committed in the past.



ATTITUDE OF NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEMBERS

Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, I must admit that last night it was extremely embarrassing, as a Member of Parliament, to witness the parliamentary circus in which all Members took part. I want to censure the attitude of the NDP, which certainly abused the privileges of this institution yesterday. I know that today, in some parliaments, we find people who want to settle problems with guns, and what happened last night and early this morning just goes to show that people are right to be suspicious of the qualifications of parliamentarians or the validity of the institution as such.
Mr. Speaker, I wish the Chair could make some new rules about this sort of thing, because what we saw last night is certainly unacceptable. Mr. Speaker, I would also like to know the cost to the House of Commons in terms of overtime for all services that had to work from nine o'clock last night until five o'clock this morning. The NDP claims that public money is
June 21, 1984

being wasted but I think that yesterday, those same people showed an incredible lack of responsibility and lack of respect for Canadian taxpayers.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



EDUCATION


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of Parliament to the existence of a French school in Prince Edward Island, in my riding. It was founded in September 1980. Today the school has twenty-one pupils, from the first to the eighth grade. The school employs two teachers full time and one teacher part time.
Initially, the school's expenditures were paid for directly and almost exclusively by the federal Government. Today, the provincial Government is gradually increasing its contribution with funds derived from federal transfer payments. More than half of the school's pupils are children of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. In fact, establishing the school was a prerequisite for moving the Department from Ottawa to Charlottetown. At the Franjois-Buote school, English is taught only as a second language. Next week, we will have the pleasure of inaugurating the new building of the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown. The Fran-fois-Buote School-


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



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, last winter the House ordered the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture to investigate the impact of tax policies and tax administration on Canada's arts community. I had the honour to chair a special subcommittee on the issue, and we reported on it today.
We found one problem which requires fast action. We urge Revenue Canada to review the files of artists reassessed prior to April 1, 1984. Many were asked to pay very high amounts of tax which they cannot afford. On the other hand, artists assessed after April 1 face lower demands. We found that their tax deductions and claims were similar to those of the first group.
The difference is that Revenue Canada has changed its assessment policy. The change is welcome, but has created inequity for some artists. After April 1 Revenue Canada is looking only at claims for the current year and back one year. Before April 1 it looked back at claims for four years. I urge the Government to make these reassessments equal and fair for all artists. The new policy is much better. The situation should be made consistent by providing refunds where past demands went back too far into the past.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was reported earlier this week as saying that he was happy that there had been no serious scandals, I think the phrase was, during his 16-year administration. We must congratulate the Prime Minister on this achievement, and in future perhaps we should refer to some of the peccadillos which took place as errors of judgment by the Prime Minister and his Cabinet colleagues, rather than as scandals.
Many of these minor errors of judgment involved Cabinet resignations, and included such careless mistakes as participating in an illegal international uranium cartel, airport shop sales, bid-rigging and price-fixing in Hamilton, contempt of court both by criticizing a judge's ruling and also by phoning a judge and trying to influence him, evasion of income tax, building in national parks against the rules, lobbying within two years of resignation, extensive examples of conflict of interest especially in connection with anti-dumping problems, forging of abortion papers, suppression of information and failure to act regarding illegal activities by the RCMP, bribes to achieve atomic sales, maintenance of blacklists unknown to the victims-


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



THE CANADA COUNCIL


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask, as others have before me, that the Government remove the Canada Council from the listing of Crown corporations and agencies included in Bill C-24.
Considering the operations of some Crown corporations in the country, there is little doubt that legislation is needed to make these agencies accountable. In fact such legislation is long overdue. However, the Canada Council is not an economic machine. It produces no profits or losses, and the Auditor General has never complained about its accounts. What is more, the Canada Council was never intended to be under the kind of direct Cabinet control outlined in Bill C-24. Instead, it

June 21, 1984
Oral Questions
was supposed to be an independent funding organization for the arts, and direct Cabinet control of its operations would compromise the Council's independence.
There is no need for the Canada Council to be governed by Bill C-24. Such action will only threaten the future integrity of the Council. Obviously the monolithic tendencies of the Government have once again manifested themselves. I urge the Government to leave well enough alone and allow the Canada Council to operate as the efficient and independent agency it is and must remain, outside the provisions of Bill C-24.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, of the Deputy Prime Minister, and of the Minister of Finance when the Bank of Canada rate is announced today, I will direct my question to the Charlie McCarthy of the Department of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance. He will know that today the Canadian dollar hit its lowest value.


An Hon. Member:: What should we call you?


Mr. Evans:: His name is Mortimer Snerd.


John Carnell Crosbie: The birdbrain should keep quiet for a minute.


An Hon. Member:: Sit down then, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Today the Canadian dollar hit its lowest value ever in our history. The Bank of Canada rate has gone up again to 11.98 per cent, which will force up the prime rate and all interest rates in Canada.
This has been done in lieu of a report of the OEDC which indicates that our unemployment, currently at 11.7 per cent, will stick close to that level until the end of 1985. For the next 18 months it sees unemployment averaging about 11 per cent for the whole period. Also it indicates that the jobless rate for young Canadians under 24 years of age will be at least 19 per cent during the whole period. At the same time the jobless rate in the United States will be about 7 per cent.
In view of the fact that the resurrection of Mr. Turner, Pierre Elliott Turner, has not given any confidence to the financial system, and apparently has not done our economic situation any good-there is no confidence in him either-will the Minister recommend an immediate election to the Government unless the Government can take steps to reverse this increase in interest rates, the weakness in the Canadian dollar, and the horrendous unemployment situation? Will you get
your courage about you and call an election, if you cannot do any better than this?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the Member's last question is no. The answer to his earlier question is that the basic reason for what has happened today in the case of the Bank of Canada rate is that in the United States there has been the publication of what is called a "flash" on second quarter growth in the U.S. Substantial economic growth has been estimated for the second quarter, and the estimates for the first quarter have been revised upward.
In the United States there is rapid, real economic growth. At the same time there is a continuing concern in the U.S. that nothing is being done about the very high levels of government deficit financing. Equally, there is severe continuing monetary restraint. Those factors have come together to produce, in the United States, a fear that interest rates may go up again. This has had its impact in Canada, both in terms of our bank rate as the Hon. Member noted, and upon the Canadian dollar.
I would, however, point out to the Hon. Member opposite that all major currencies have weakened against the U.S. dollar, not just the Canadian, as the expectation, fear or speculation about an increase in U.S. interest rates has continued. The Hon. Member opposite knows perfectly well that Canada is a major trading nation with open currency borders. It is not immune from, and indeed is vulnerable to, interest rate movements in the United States. That is exactly what has been happening-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair has concern at this point about time limits. We are not getting questions and answers; we are getting debate when a very long preamble with a long initial question is followed by a lengthy answer. If it takes ten minutes for the original questioner, it is at the expense of the back-benchers of the Member's own Party. It is very difficult for the Chair to enforce time limits because the Chair has no guidelines on this. Will the Hon. Member for St. John's West bear this in mind in posing his supplementary question?


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is addressed to the same Minister. The Minister just flashed at the Canadian public. The Canadian public is not interested in these silly reasons for what is happening here. We have now had three months of inactivity while the Liberal so-called leadership convention went on and Mr. Turner received his coronation, and Mr. Chretien was crucified by the Deputy Prime Minister among others.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member for St. John's West, being an experienced parliamentarian, knows that it is not the practice of the House to refer to Cabinet Ministers by name. I am sure the Hon. Member knows that his question should be addressed to the Chair.
June 21, 1984


John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the fact that Statistics Canada shows that residential construction activity, that is housing, has fallen 3.4 per cent, and over-all building construction has fallen 1.5 per cent, how can the Government allow interest rates to go up again? How can the Government force interest rates up through the Bank of Canada as you are doing today, and what are you going to do to reverse that? Will you-


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, the Chair is not doing any of these things. The Hon. Member should bear in mind that questions should be addressed through the Chair.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that Canadian interest rates are affected substantially by those in the United States. For him to speak in terms of this Government driving up interest rates is a lot of poppycock. He knows that.
With regard to his query about the OECD report, as usual he chooses to take the gloomiest and most pessimistic view that he possibly can. No wonder he talks about being mean and nasty. It seems to come natural to him to choose the most pessimistic of all aspects of any report. If he had taken the time to read the OECD report he would have seen that it says that the Canadian economy should continue to perform favourably compared with other countries. It states "Canada's economic performance last year was unexpectedly favourable. The recovery saw output rebound and unemployment ease while inflation decelerated." Against that good news about the Canadian economy, it has been possible for us to continue, during the period under review, to pursue economic growth policies that have allowed us to close the interest rate gap with the United States. The Hon. Member opposite knows perfectly well that interest rates in Canada are now no greater than and, in a few instances, less than those in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: It would be helpful to the Chair if something like the 90-second rule that governs Standing Order 21 could somehow be introduced on both sides.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary question to the Prime Minister who, I am sure, will give a short, concise answer. On June 19 the Minister of Finance stated at Jasper: "New foreign direct investment has increased, not decreased, and has increased substantially in recent years." That is entirely incorrect. In fact there has been a net loss of foreign direct investment since 1980 of $4 billion. Will the Prime Minister advise the House whether he will keep in his Cabinet, even for the few short days remaining, a Minister who tells fibs to the investment community and attempts to deceive the public? Will Fibber
Oral Questions
Lalonde and the dollar be removed from office by the Prime Minister before he goes, in view of the untruthfulness contained in his speech to investment dealers on June 19 which has destroyed any confidence there may have been remaining in that Minister?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: What a lot of empty phrases, Mr. Speaker. I remember that when the Minister of Finance was quoting from either the Bureau of Statistics or from one of the well-known economic research bodies in Canada, I do not recall which, he was really making public information that he had received from a very authoritative source. This Member stands up and says it is not true. He has no evidence of that. He is just making it up, like most of his questions which are founded on nothing but air.


LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of State for Finance. I want to put the Minister's good news in the context of the 1.5 million Canadians who are unemployed today, and tell him that Canadians are becoming fed up with the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance saying that everything is rosy in Canada, that everything is going well in Canada. It is not, because there are 1.5 million people unemployed. If Canadians had had the same job-creation rate as in the United States, the unemployment rate in Canada would be 8.7 per cent, not 11.7 per cent. In the face of the drift we have in Canada, when is the Government going to act to face this problem?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite engages, as usual, in his gloomy pseudo statistics which do not show the real picture at all. As the Hon. Member knows, and as I told him last week when he asked the same question, the growth in the Canadian labour force has been at record levels. It has been greater than the growth in the labour force in other major industrialized countries. The Hon. Member opposite should know, if he does not already know, that from 1968, for example, the increase in the Canadian labour force was some 40 per cent, whereas in the five other major industrialized countries it was at an average rate of 13 per cent.
Second, he makes a comparison between rates of unemployment in Canada and the United States. I would point out to him that if the Canadian labour force had grown only at the rate that the U.S. labour force has grown, we would have only 4 per cent unemployment today.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are fed up with the professorial response. They want action from this Government, not a lecture. I wish to quote from one of the Government's documents:

June 21, 1984
Oral Questions
Manufacturers appear to be facing a slowdown in new orders, particularly for such things as cars and steel... Rising interest rates appear to have cut into final demand and investment, and this is working back through the production chain, curtailing orders-
It is causing greater unemployment in our country. Since the change in Liberal leadership last weekend has done nothing to stop the drift in confidence, as seen in the Canadian dollar today, in the bond market and in the stock market, what is the Government going to do to face up to these very serious problems that are real out in the streets, and not as the Minister points them out as he stands here in the House like a professor?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member again describes, as he always does, a gloomy outlook for the Canadian economy, by choosing a few selected statistics. If he will look at the facts and look at the release of information the other day by my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, he will find that in fact companies responding to a survey of business capital investment intentions have indicated that their spending will increase by about 2 per cent in 1984 from the comparable 1983 level. This is the first net increase since 1982. If the Hon. Member does not know, a 2 per cent increase is a substantial increase for the period under review.
Partly as a result of the Government's policies in the previous two Budgets, there is now evidence of a real reaffirmation of confidence in growth in the Canadian economy, particularly in the manufacturing sector where companies now expect 17 per cent real growth in spending versus 10 per cent indicated in the previous survey of last October. Contrary to what the Member opposite is indicating, there has been, in the private sector, a vote of confidence in the Canadian economy similar to that expressed in the OECD report to which the Hon. Member for St. John's West drew our attention.


HOUSING
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. I am sure the Minister is aware that the actual number of housing starts this year on an annual basis is running at about
50.000	housing units behind the projected need, and about
30.000	housing units behind what was projected to be the actual number of starts by the Government at the beginning of the year.
Given those two facts, what possible reason can there be for the Minister to recommend that there be cutbacks in the number of social housing units to be built in Canada, from the level of 25,957 last year to the level of 22,500 this year? I would ask the Minister please not to tell me that he is paying back the loan from last year, because that just does not wash.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member began by quoting statistics. I might tell him that the seasonally adjusted rate of housing starts in May was 135,000 dwelling units. This represents an increase of 7 per cent over the April, 1984, total of 126,000.
That being said, the Hon. Member must remember, as I am sure he does, that the increase in the allocation to social housing was very clearly understood by everyone. He may say that it does not wash with him, but I am sure that if he made a commitment to do something when the housing starts had improved, as they have in the last year or year and a half, then at that point the social housing budget would return to its normal level.


PROJECTED HOUSING CONSTRUCTION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that the number of housing starts is at 135,000. He knows full well that the projected need is 200,000 units a year. He also knows that in the first quarter of this year alone we were building housing units at a rate of only 145,000 per year, which leaves us on a yearly basis 65,000 housing units behind our need or, on a quarterly basis, 55,000 housing units behind our need. Taking that into account, and recognizing that there are 12,000 people in metropolitan Toronto alone who have no fixed address because they cannot find affordable housing or accommodation, how can the Minister justify making these cuts in the field of social housing?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I did not make cuts. The fact is that we have been running at a level of 30,000 housing units on a program which was intended to run at a level of 25,000 housing units. We simply had to accept the fact that the building of these units which were received as an advance payment would not continue forever. However, the Hon. Member speaks of housing starts. In 1982 housing starts were at a level of 125,000 units. In 1983, they were at a level of 162,000 units, and the estimated level for the current year is 171,000 units.


PLIGHT OF SENIOR CITIZENS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in quoting the statistics the Minister does not seem to recognize that in each of the years about which he is speaking we ran at least 40,000 housing units behind our need. With 12,000 people in Toronto in need of housing of a social nature, with
3,000	senior citizens in Toronto unable to find senior citizens' accommodation, and with thousands of others in almost every municipality from coast to coast unable to find housing at an affordable price, how can we afford to take 2,500 to 3,500 units away from the social housing allocation this year, knowing full well that we will not be able to meet either the immediate need or the projected requirements?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has served in the provincial Legislature of the Province of Ontario, if my memory is correct. He
June 21, 1984

seems to forget that housing does not fall totally under federal jurisdiction. In fact if he compares the amount of money this Government is putting into housing, and particularly social housing with the amount of money spent by the provinces then he may want to speak to his counterparts in the provincial Legislature of his own province and, in fact, in the Legislatures of most provinces. The federal Government is doing more than all of the provinces of Canada combined.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, who was speaking of confidence. I would wonder what kind of confidence the people have shown in the Government of Canada with the Canadian dollar at its lowest level in history today.
Across the country today there are billboards which read: "Celebrate the Future" and on which yesterday's man is featured prominently. I would like to know what kind of future we are to celebrate? Are we celebrating a future that now sees Canadians with a full-time employment level of 2.4 per cent less than it was in January, 1981, when full-time employment levels in the United States are up 5.1 per cent? What kind of future are we celebrating? What kind of future do these unemployed Canadians have to celebrate?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite should look for a moment at the OECD report with which the Hon. Member from St. John's is so preoccupied. In fact that report offers good news. If he wants to receive good news, he should read what the OECD has to say.
The OECD predicts that Canada's economic growth in 1984 will be second only to that of Japan and will be substantially ahead of that of the United States and other industrialized countries. The OECD believes, and the Canadian Government shares its view, that our growth in 1984 will be in the 4 per cent to 5 per cent range. This, of course, will in turn bring increased investment in the Canadian economy and an increased creation of jobs.
When talking about job creation the Hon. Member should also know that over the last years we have set record levels in job creation. Indeed, since the end of the recession we have created almost half a million jobs in the Canadian economy, the creation of which has played a substantial part in offsetting the effects of the recession.
Oral Questions
say they have created. The fact is that we have gotten nothing but blarney and nonsense from the Government.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, why does the Minister not pay attention to what is being done in the United States? In the United States there was a growth rate of 9.7 per cent in the last quarter. I would point out to the Minister that Statistics Canada has now delayed stating the Canadian growth figures three times. However, those figures are likely to show a 2.4 per cent or perhaps 2.7 per cent rate of growth for the same quarter. Why are we doing so poorly when the United States, our major trading partner, is doing so well? What does the Minister have to say about that? Why has the Government given us nothing but yesterday answers, and now a yesterday Leader?


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Canadian economy is doing well. We shall see increased growth during the course of this year. This growth is estimated to be ahead of that of the United States for the year.
The Hon. Member opposite should know, as should his colleague, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, that in fact the increase in the Canadian workforce has been at levels greater than that of the United States, or, indeed, of any of the other summit countries. The Canadian labour force has grown at rates which have been unparalleled, not only in our history but in comparison with those of other industrialized countries. In those circumstances we have had high rates of unemployment. I regret to say that we shall continue to have a substantial rate of unemployment in the time ahead. However, we shall equally be creating jobs at a very rapid rate to absorb as many as possible of the new workers who will be entering the workforce.
* *


SAFE DRINKING WATER
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the continuing concern about acid rain, both from environmental and health points of view, will the Minister indicate if she is encouraging new initiatives to protect the health of Canadians and, in particular, what is being done to ensure that drinking water in unorganized areas, where the water quality is not controlled by municipalities, is safe?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, if we had all of the jobs that government Members say have been creating, every Canadian in the country would be working night and day, and on weekends. We would be bringing in great numbers of immigrants. We would not know what to do with all of the jobs they


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I know that this is of great concern to the Minister and to the Department. There is a good deal of study being done in this regard, particularly as it relates to people's health. We hope to

June 21, 1984
Oral Questions
be able to have something more definitive when those studies are completed in the near future.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I imagine that the Minister of National Revenue is being briefed on the answer to the question which I am about to ask him. The Minister will know that the Supreme Court rendered an extremely important judgment today in which it found against the Department of National Revenue in favour of James Richardson and Sons Limited. In view of the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court included the following statement: "The Minister cannot under subsection (3) of Section 231 of the Act conduct a "fishing expedition" into the trading activities of the customers of one broker," I would ask the Minister what assurance he can give to the House that any attempt to conduct this sort of fishing expedition in the future will be stopped. Also, would he assure the House that no attempts, similar to the one which was made with the request to the City of Kitchener for complete access to the computerized data base of that city, will be made in the future?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, the judgment was made public this morning. We are studying, in the Department, the nature of that judgment. I want to ensure the Hon. Member that the application of Section 231 and the administrative practices related to it will be put in line with respect to the judgment which was made today.


RESPECT FOR RIGHTS OF TAXPAYERS
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, the judgment opens up two possibilities. The first is that in a case such as this the Department could have asked for the files of very brokerage firm and gone on an even more massive fishing expedition than it had contemplated. The second possibility is that the Department would not target one individual firm.
I would like to ask the Minister for the assurance that he will not take the option of simply casting the nets farther and increasing the ability of the Department to go on this sort of a fishing expedition, but instead that he will opt for the privacy of Canadians and for some respect of their basic rights. Can he at least give us that assurance, which was recommended by the PC Task Force on Revenue Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I want to give the assurance to Members of the House that we will continue to respect the rights of Canadian taxpayers as we have always done. I also would like to assure the Hon. Member that the judgment of the Supreme Court
and the suggestions which were made will be respected by the Department.


HOUSING
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. It has to do with the survivors of the AHOP Program, many of whom have loan payments which are coming due. They are asking that the Government give consideration to forgiving those loans altogether. In view of the fact that many home owners were lucky enough not to subject to the wrong assumptions behind the AHOP Program and received the $3,000 grant, those who remain in the AHOP Program are asking that their loans be forgiven. I would like to know if the Minister is considering doing this, given the difficult situation in which many of these people have been placed by that program?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I interpret the Hon. Member's question as a representation. He well knows that that program was intended to help people whose revenue was limited or reasonably modest. I am sure that anything the corporation can do to be helpful will be done.


REQUEST THAT LOAN PAYMENTS BE FORGIVEN
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is not a representation. I am asking the Minister to indicate whether he will authorize CMHC to forgive the loan payments. CMHC is willing to take a dive in other respects. I have the real estate sales listings for Winnipeg for the months of February and March which indicate that CMHC is willing to sell approximately one dozen homes at $3,000 below the market price, to one company. CMHC is willing to sell those homes to that company at fire sale prices, but to private people it is asking approximately $3,000 more. If CMHC is willing to take a $3,000 dive to benefit one company, why will is not take a similar dive on behalf of the people who have stuck it out in those homes, who have tried to make a go of it, and who are asking for the same kind of consideration which was given to the people who received the $3,000 grant?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member's representations may be perfectly justified. I think they might have been weakened by the demagoguery which he is trying to put before the House.
June 21, 1984


THE ADMINISTRATION
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it has to do with Mr. Turner. Mr. Turner is reported to be earning in excess of $100,000 per year in director's fees. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us how much money Mr. Turner is receiving in director's fees for the period in which he has access to confidential Cabinet documents? Would the Prime Minister also tell us why the Government and Mr. Turner believe it is appropriate that he should be paid by private companies while he has access to confidential information which could help those private companies?


Mr. Speaker:: The concerns the Chair has at this point is whether such information should be presumed to be within the knowledge of the Government. The rules of the House are clear with respect to questions within a government or ministerial responsibility.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, your instincts and your knowledge are great. You took the words out of my mouth. I can confirm the basis of the doubts. In fact, I do not know how much Mr. Turner is earning. I do not know the answers to the questions which the Right Hon. Member is asking. However, I am sure Mr. Turner will take notice of those questions.


PARLIAMENTARY RESPONSIBILITY OF NEW GOVERNMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to examine a field about which the Prime Minister may well have more certain knowledge, as it has to do with when he will be leaving. Another aspect of Mr. Turner's "old boys' club" approach to government is that he is considering appointing new Ministers to Cabinet who will sit neither in the House of Commons nor in the Senate.
I would like the Prime Minister to tell us whether this new Government will meet Parliament before this session adjourns on June 29, or will it act as an extra-parliamentary Government, without the legitimacy of either being elected by the people or being approved by the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the answer to that question either. I know that, traditionally, the transition between one Government and another-and the Right Hon. Member has two experiences in that regard, and so do I with him-generally takes about a fortnight. I have told Mr. Turner that I would be ready to offer my resignation at a convenient time within that general time frame, a few days earlier or a few days later. I do not know what his decision will be.


John Carnell Crosbie: You are going, though?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think I will be going, yes.
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


TEXTILE AND CLOTHING IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO PROTECT JOBS
Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade who is responsible for import controls.
The textile industry in the Eastern Townships is steadily declining, and the closing of the Celanese Canada Limited plant in Coaticook is one more in a series of final shutdowns that has already been announced.
Could the Minister inform the House whether the fact that imports are being tolerated by the Government is a sign that the Government is unwilling or is no longer willing to protect jobs in the textile industry, and if so, can employees and the people of Coaticook expect that this Government will make up for the loss of jobs by urging or even obliging high-tech industries to locate in the area, thus providing jobs in presumably more modern and more lucrative sectors?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say that the jobs of workers in this area are very important to the Government. In the case mentioned by the Hon. Member, it is very important-


Mr. McDermid:: A cote de vous, M. Diefenbaker etait vraiment doue pour les langues!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, we must not forget that the Coaticook plant is not a modern one. Furthermore, we must bear in mind that our polyester imports do not come from countries where prices are lower than they are in Canada. Many of our imports are from the United States and Japan, which means we must develop modern and competitive plants in our own country.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 
Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Silenzio!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Svyenya! C'est Ukrainien!

June 21, 1984
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are all having difficulties after last night, but the Chair can only recognize two official languages and is having some difficulty.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It deals with the question of whether or not Mr. John Turner, the future Prime Minister, has in fact received or sought from the Government a legal opinion as to the legitimacy, constitutionality, or appropriateness of an unelected Prime Minister appointing a cabinet, which is made up of a significant number of persons who are non-elected, in the dying days of a dying Government in a dying Parliament, especially in light of the fact that the President of the Liberal Party of Canada and members of his own caucus have pronounced this type of activity, which is unprecedented, as being repugnant?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that your instincts are to interrupt the Hon. Member and indicate that this is not, as well, anything under my purview. Whether Mr. Turner has sought legal advice or not, he certainly has not done so through me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Did he ask the Government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, I apologize. The Hon. Member asks if he asked the Government for such advice. I have no knowledge that he had or would ask such advice of the Government, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member himself gave away, I believe, the fallacy of his question when he asked whether it would be legal or appropriate. The Department of Justice, perhaps unlike the Supreme Court, does not give opinions on what is appropriate, only on what is legal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, judging from some of the opinions the Prime Minister has received, I can believe that to be the case.


BRIEFING BY SECRETARY TO CABINET
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister has committed Mr. Osbaldeston to brief the future Prime Minister with respect to confidential documents, government documents, which are available normally only to members of the Cabinet. He said yesterday that he instructed Mr. Osbaldeston to show Mr. Turner some but not all of the documents. I wonder if the Prime Minister would tell us, in light of Mr. Turner's corporate connections, which have been a question of some prominence as well as speculation in the editorial pages, what documents there are which Mr. Osbaldeston is not showing to Mr. Turner? Having regard to the conflict of interest guidelines of the Prime Minister, what documents has he directed Mr. Osbaldeston to refuse access to Mr. Turner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have not given any such specific directions to Mr. Osbaldeston. I indicated my confidence in Mr. Osbaldeston and in Mr. Turner. Both gentlemen, I am sure, would want to make sure
that any possibility of conflict of interest would not arise if there were some document dealing with some subject with which Mr. Turner, as director of a company, had been involved. I am sure both gentlemen will be very aware of that danger because of the suspicious nature of the Opposition.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development. According to the Financial Post, a report prepared for the Minister's Department by Woodbridge Reed and Associates, confirms what the New Democrats have been trying to tell the Government about British Columbia's forest industry. The report paints a picture of a devastated industry, locked into outdated technology, with inadequate research and development and poor levels of utilization of a mismanaged and threatened forest base.
The industry has depended on raw and semi-processed products and cannot compete with more developed products because it has not developed the infrastructure for marketing. Considering Liberal Government promises in 1979 to help the lumber and plywood industries of British Columbia, and considering that no such help has been given, what proposals does the Government have to help the forest industry of British Columbia get out of its present devastation so that it can act as the proper solid foundation for a decent economy?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent from all of the actions which the Government has taken with respect to every province which has a forestry sector-British Columbia is the most important, but by no means alone-that we are taking steps to encourage the provinces to have primary responsibility in this area, particularly with respect to reforestation. That is where the real devastation has taken place in Canada. We have taken steps to move ahead with joint agreements in order to give effect to the national forestry strategy which the Government adopted in 1981. The Hon. Member is quite right that the industry is in a sad state across this country. The provinces have not done their share of reforestation and taken other steps which are necessary in order to preserve what is one of this country's greatest national resources, and the major export from Canada.
We will be, I hope, entering into negotiations with British Columbia in order to sign an economic and regional development agreement with that province. It is one of the few provinces, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, with which we have not yet embarked upon substantial negotiations. We have now signed off in fact seven economic and regional development agreements. In each instance, as I can recall, forestry, of course, has been featured as one of the major areas of develop-
June 21, 1984

ment. The same, of course, obviously has to be true with British Columbia.
With respect to research and development-


John Horton McDermid: Come on!


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member has given his answer.


TAX CREDITS PROPOSAL
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Government is able to get some action going. The report concludes that the industry itself is in such debt that it is not able to finance any long-term restructuring or expansion. That is largely, of course, because of mergers. It suggests that the federal Government-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his supplementary question?


James Douglas Manly: Considering that the report suggests that the federal Government should allow the industry to sell tax credits to finance equity, would the Minister tell the House, if the Government adopts such a doubtful approach, what guarantees would there be for the Canadian people that this will not be another scam such as we saw with the research and development tax credits? What guarantees have we that this will not be-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked his supplementary question.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the conclusion that there is some kind of a scam associated with research and development tax credits, of course, is nonsense. I believe we should all be pleased that so many Canadians have taken advantage of those research and development tax credits. The important thing is to ensure that they are being applied in a constructive way in terms of the R and D which is now begun in Canada. I suspect that that will be evaluated very soon. Instead of being critical of that, I feel we should be delighted that more money is going into research and development in these areas.
I come back to the point, Mr. Speaker, that this is an area where we have to work hand in hand with the provinces. I would hope that the kind of representations which the Hon. Member is making here today will also be made by him in his own province to the provincial officials and to provincial politicians.


AGRICULTURE
Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture will know that, notwithstanding the undertakings by the federal Government to implement the litre container legislation and regulations, the Province of Quebec is still holding to a July 15 deadline for possible implementation of the regulations, which will be two weeks after the start of the tomato season in southwestern Ontario. Will he take the lead and offer to meet with Mr. Garon and obtain assurances that in fact we will not have the same kind of fiasco we had last year where trade between Ontario and Quebec will stop because of the containers?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication notifying me that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely, John Kushner, Member for the electoral district of Calgary East, by decease.
Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral district.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, June 20, 1984, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on Wednesday, June 20, 1984, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

June 21, 1984
Introduction of Bills BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put to the President of the Privy Council the usual Thursday question with respect to the Government's legislative intentions over the course of the next few days and weeks.


Yvon Pinard: Perhaps I can begin with the business starting on September 10, but let us try to get something done before the end of next week.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, tomorrow the House will be considering four Bills, in the following order. The first Bill will be C-40, which concerns the guaranteed income supplement, followed by C-37 dealing with the mortgage rate protection plan for homeowners; the third Bill will be S-14, which concerns a tax agreement with the United States; and the fourth Bill to be debated tomorrow will be C-36, to amend the Interest Act, which is related somewhat to Bill C-37, the second Bill on the agenda tomorrow. So we shall be considering Bills C-40, C-37, S-14 and C-36.
As far as next week is concerned, a number of Bills were discussed at a meeting of the Parliamentary House Leaders held earlier today. At this point I cannot say we have a firm agreement regarding consideration of these Bills. However, we are confident, since the House is sitting for extended hours and we shall automatically adjourn on June 29, and also considering the spirit of co-operation required under our new system, that the three Parties will be able to agree on adopting a reasonable number of measures before we adjourn on the 29th. I believe that in the circumstances, now that we have determined the order of business for tomorrow, next week's order of business should be set for one day at a time, since we shall probably be having regular meetings of the Parliamentary House Leaders, and we can then do so according to daily progress in the House on the items of legislation concerned.
For the time being, I shall therefore set the order of business for tomorrow only. Tomorrow I can be more specific, depending on our progress and the results of my talks with the Parliamentary House Leaders of the two Opposition Parties.



HERITAGE RAILWAY STATION PROTECTION ACT


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-253, an Act to protect heritage railway stations.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, it was the demolition of the West Toronto CP railway station which motivated me to bring forward this Bill. Its purpose is to prohibit companies from removing, destroying, selling, assigning, transferring or otherwise disposing of a heritage railway station owned by it or otherwise under its control unless otherwise authorized by an order of the Governor in Council.


[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.

[ Translation]



MULTICULTURALISM ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Yvon Pinard, for the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism) moved for leave to introduce Bill C-48, an Act respecting multiculturalism.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to authorize the Minister to introduce this Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



WESTERN ARCTIC (INUVIALUIT) CLAIMS SETTLEMENT ACT MEASURE TO ESTABLISH

['Agreed.']
Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-49, an Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid the agreement between the Committee for Original Peoples' Entitlement, representing the Inuvialuit of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region and the Government of Canada, and to amend the National Parks Act in consequence thereof.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 21, 1984


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
['Agreed.\nJune 21, 1984']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, on House business I forgot to mention that tomorrow I will be seeking unanimous consent, which follows consultations, concerning Bill C-47, an Act to amend the Indian Act. We have agreed to allow this Bill to go to committee without debate so I just want to indicate that the first item of business tomorrow, when we reach Orders of the Day, will be to seek that consent on Bill C-47.


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: 27 and 170.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Is it government policy to allow behavioural modification projects to be conducted in the federal prison system and, if so, in each case (a) what is the purpose of the project (b) who are the persons responsible for its completion (c) how many subjects are involved (d) what is the nature of the treatment?
2.	Which departments, agencies, boards, commissions or Crown corporations are directly or indirectly involved in behavioural modification programs and, in each case (a) what is the nature of the government's involvement (b) what is the purpose of the project (c) how many subjects are involved (d) who is the person responsbile for the government's participation (e) who is the person in charge of the program (f) what is the nature of the treatment?


John Leslie Evans: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Medical Research Council as follows:
1.	The question is too general to answer. A principal goal of the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) is to encourage rehabilitation. Virtually all activities in prison take account of this goal.
2.	The Medical Research Council:
(a)	The funding of a grant which has to do with Skinnerian behavioural modification, that is, investigations of training and production technologies for developing vocational competencies of the severely and moderately retarded (University of Manitoba, $41,192-Dr. Garry L. Martin).
Order Paper Questions
(b)	To teach industrial skills to mentally retarded patients within sheltered workships and in a community residence.
(c)	One hundred and seventy-three.
(d)	Not available.
(e)	Dr. Garry L. Martin, University of Manitoba.
(f)	Basic skill development and performance of simple work tasks.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there an Atomic Energy Control Board Sub-committee on Nuclear Security and, if so (a) who are the members (b) what is the (i) background or expertise (ii) term of appointment of each member (c) what remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses, do the members receive and, for the length of each appointment to date, what amount did each member receive (d) what other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	(a) What are the terms of reference of the Sub-committee (b) what matters did it consider in the fiscal year 1982-83 (c) how often did it meet and how often is it required to meet (d) what reports and/or recommendations did the Subcommittee publish in the fiscal year 1982-83?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1. No.
There is, however, a subcommittee of the interdepartmental Security Advisory Committee which provides advice on the security of nuclear installations and materials.
(a)	The members are officials representing:
The Atomic Energy Control Board Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd.
The Department of National Defence The Ministry of the Solicitor General The Department of External Affairs Emergency Planning Canada The Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(b)	(i) Representatives on the subcommittee change from time to time but each member has some security responsibilities within his or her own department or agency which relate to national security issues, (ii) There are no specific terms of appointment.
(c)	The members do not receive remuneration for providing these services other than their public servant salaries.
(d)	None.
2. (a) and (b) The specific terms of reference and the matters dealt with relate to issues affecting the security of Canada and cannot be publicly disclosed.
(c)	The subcommittee met twice in FY 82-83. There is no established requirement for frequency of meetings.
(d)	See 2 (a) and (b) above.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if question No. 175 could be made an order for return, that return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 175 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Advisory Committee on Biotechnology and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Committee meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading stage of this Bill. There are four very important aspects of the Bill which deserve further consideration. You will recall that last evening we spent some time
on votes on this Bill. However, we did not have an opportunity, before coming to those votes, to finish consideration at the report stage. There were still a number of very important matters before us when we had to turn to the vote.
There are four elements of this Bill which I want to emphasize most particularly. The first is the separation of the agency from the RCMP. That has been a matter of some controversy. I suppose it is the element which divides the Government Party from our Party and our attitude toward the agency, whether it be within the RCMP or separate. Our Party favours the retention of the agency within the larger ambit of the RCMP.
That is one element. I think the Canadian public is concerned about that particular element. A lot of people have made up their mind. I am sure that a lot of others are still wondering. If there is a balance swinging in one direction or another, it is in favour of the retention of the service within the RCMP, for the very simple reason that the RCMP is a known quantity. The separate service outside of the RCMP is an unknown quantity. Given the history of intelligence agencies around the world, the separation of that agency from a known quantity is causing concern.
I will mention the second matter and return to it later, and that is the element of ministerial responsibility. This is a deep and abiding concern. Ministerial responsibility does not exist in this Bill. I know it is difficult to retain ministerial responsibility. However, there must be a link between an agency such as the Security Intelligence Service and the Parliament of Canada. That does not now exist, even with the review committee.
The third element which is causing concern is the threat to human rights and the imminent invasion of privacy which are inherent in the type of organization which is being created by this Bill. Mistakes can be made and innocent people can have their rights affronted and their privacy invaded. What recourse do individuals have to secure what they believe to be their rights? How do they protect their privacy?
One of the interesting elements in timing is that this potential for invasion of privacy or assault on human rights in Canada comes right on the heals of the Charter of Rights which is now embedded in the Constitution. People now feel that they have their rights and they are damn well going to be sure that they are recognized. How are they going to be recognized under this legislation unless there is some sort of ministerial responsibility? That is a tragedy. The Bill was not properly thought out. The link between the individuals, the legislators and the Government has not been properly worked out.
I am not questioning for an instant the need for a security intelligence agency. My experience in a previous career has taught me, and my reading since that time has reinforced what I learned, that there is a need for a security agency. However, in creating that agency we must not avoid this parliamentary institution which is a safeguard of the rights of the Canadian people. That is what we are doing with this Bill.
June 21, 1984

The fourth element arose over the past weekend. It has two aspects. It is the emergence of a new Leader of the governing Party. Mr. Turner was elected last weekend as the new Leader of the Liberal Party. In the course of time he will become Prime Minister. For the first day or so we were prepared to concede that Mr. Turner was not aware of what this Bill might contain. He had been Minister of Justice at a very critical time so he should have been aware. He should have been following what was happening, but of course he was busy campaigning. Perhaps he had not focused clearly on the contents of this Bill. Therefore, for the first day or so we were prepared to concede that, being unaware, the process of legislating this Bill was proceeding without his knowledge. That period has now passed. Mr. Turner must be aware that this Bill is before the House of Commons. He must also be aware of, and therefore must have condoned, the imposition of closure or time limitation on debate.
In two senses the future Prime Minister of Canada is coming in with two strikes against him. He is prepared to back a new institution with which he must have been familiar because he was working with the agency before. Starting out with those two heavy strikes against him on this particular piece of legislation is a pretty tough way to begin.
Let me come back to ministerial responsibility and leave the names out of it for the moment. Others have spoken about other elements of the Bill. My prime concern today is that element of ministerial responsibility.
Let me read extracts from a book that I was looking at recently. I believe reading these extracts give the gist of the story. This is the story of a person who became embedded in the security institutions of the Canadian Government. I admit that it is a novel, but this person became embedded within those institutions and it finally became clear that this person was a plant or a spy. The book first points out that those who were investigating the matter found a number of unused one-time cypher pads. Unused one-time cypher pads are used for cyphering plain language to transmit over the wires, which can then be unscrambled at the far end. However, in the belongings of this particular person they found some one-time cypher pads, a list of call signs, tables set to 24-hour cycles keyed to five-year calendars, and so on. It is the manual that is used for conveying information in a secure manner.
It became apparent that this person, having suspected that she had been detected, fled from Ottawa to Montreal with her son. Their car was traced to what was called Pier 11. The head of the service said: "Pier 11, is that not where the MS Alexandr Puskin normally docks?" The trail became a little more interesting and the fears were being substantiated. It then became apparent to the head of the intelligence service who had all these ideas in his mind that he would have to tell the Prime Minister. He was sure that the Prime Minister would not like what he had to tell him.
The book goes on to say that the head of the intelligence service saw the Prime Minister in his Centre Block office in
Security Intelligence Service
the Houses of Parliament. He gave his account to the Prime Minister. Finally the Prime Minister, having heard the story, asked the head of the intelligence agency where was the car that was used to get from Ottawa to Montreal. He was told by the head of the agency that it had been impounded by the RCMP in Montreal. It had been found on federal property within the jurisdiction of the agency and therefore could be impounded without anyone knowing it had been impounded.
The Prime Minister thought for a moment and said: "I intend to call a special meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence early tomorrow morning. I would like you to be there. We will have a number of decisions to make". The Prime Minister said: "In the meantime, arrange to have that car moved to Ottawa in a closed van and stored in a secure garage. By the way, you and the Secretary of Cabinet will be the only officials present tomorrow. I do not want the meeting advertised".
That is normal. These matters must be dealt with in a very careful manner when the security of the state is in question. He brought the Cabinet Committee together on short notice. The Prime Minister said: "I am sorry we have to meet on such short notice. As you will know, the only officials present are the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Security Service". He said that the reasons for that will become apparent. He instructed that no minutes be kept of the meeting and went on to say: "I do not intend to raise the matter in full Cabinet and I would ask that each of you refrain from discussing the subject matter of the meeting with anyone outside this group".
The scene is set. When he came to make his report he began: "Gentlemen, we have a problem. The secretary of this Committee, Mrs. Heide Latour, was discovered not long ago to be a spy, an agent of a foreign power, the Russians". This, of course, caused consternation. The Prime Minister proceeded with his account and laid out before his colleagues the full story of the operation that had been undertaken to find the leak at first, and then focusing on Madam Latour. One of the Ministers said: "Why in the hell didn't the RCMP keep her under surveillance?" The question was passed to the head of the security service who said that when it was agreed that the person in question could visit her in-laws in Quebec with her son, he suggested that she be accompanied by the woman operative who had been stationed in her house from the time they first picked her up when suspicions started to gel.
The RCMP had been dealing with this matter. The Prime Minister then said: "It appears to me that there are two practical alternatives to dealing with the problem. Make a statement in the House disclosing the facts of the case, or provide some credible public explanation for her disappearance which avoids disclosure of the true facts". It is necessary to hide the true facts. I suppose this is normal within a security operation. Someone spoke up and said: "The first alternative could be political suicide given our minority position in the House". Political considerations come into play.
The Prime Minister did not wait. He said: "Exactly my feelings. Instead, I propose that her disappearance be attribut-

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ed to an accident to her car", the gas tank of which would have exploded causing the vehicle to dissolve in a pillar of fire. They had the car and he had instructed that the car be brought to Ottawa. That can all be staged.
While I am reading from a novel, it is an interesting novel which bears directly on what we are talking about. He mentioned that the car had been found and brought to Ottawa. He said that he gave instructions that Mrs. Latour's car be removed to Ottawa in a closed van for storage by the RCMP and arrangements were accordingly made that it be found as having exploded somewhere. He turned to the head of security and said: "I assume your people can make the necessary arrangements?"
The head of the security agency then turned to the Prime Minister and said: "Mr. Prime Minister, there is no doubt that if the affair becomes public the damage done to our extensive and sensitive relationships with various foreign security and intelligence agencies within and outside NATO would be considerable". They had to avoid that. Then comes the crunch. One Minister who was very smart said: "Fine, but it could become messy. If it does, you will understand that we have to deny all knowledge of the affair". That essentially ends my reading but those words "we will have to deny all knowledge of the affair" are important.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who wrote that book. It was written since his retirement by the first civilian director of the Canadian Intelligence Service, Mr. John Starnes. It is based on his experiences. The book is called "Deep Sleepers". That is a term used in the intelligence world for those who are placed many years in advance into positions of significance and influence so they could do their spying.
I just read a small part of the book. How does it end? The Minister says: "If this becomes public you will understand, of course, that we have to deny all knowledge of the affair". There is an absolute absence of ministerial responsiblity. This is not good enough. Mr. Starnes speaks from experience.
Yesterday in our debate before we came to the vote we were considering an amendment which was brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that this House set up a Commons committee, or a committee in conjunction with the Senate which could meet in camera or openly, depending upon its agenda, to review the administration, provisions, and operation of the Service.
This Bill was not fully studied in this House-in committee, yes, but not in this House. We were not given enough time, thanks to the connivance of Mr. Turner and the Government, to deal with all the provisions of this particular legislation. It is essential in my view that there be a committee of this House to ensure that there is some responsibility to the Canadian people for the activities of that agency and for the manner in which this Bill is being implemented.
There must be a Minister who will answer. That is one of the reasons that, through the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Commissioner of the RCMP, that channel exists. But
what does this Bill propose? It proposes that the RCMP be cut out, that a separate agency be instituted and that there be no ministerial responsibility. That is the tragedy of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is so important that I felt I had to rise this afternoon to explain why it is such a dangerous Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: A ten-minute period is provided for questions or comments relating to the remarks of the Hon. Member. Are there any questions?


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I asked the same question to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) this morning, but he did not bother to answer.
There are various positions concerning the establishment of a civilian agency. The position of the Government is very well known since it is in keeping with the recommendation of the McDonald Commission and the MacKenzie Commission, and that is the creation of a civilian agency. As usual, the New Democratic Party has not made up its mind, it is like a weather vane. As to the Progressive Conservative Party, the senators who belong to that Party spoke in favour of a new civilian security agency during the proceedings of the Senate committee chaired by Mr. Pitfield. However, it would seem that the caucus of Conservative Members does not see eye to eye with the caucus of senators since it appears to be against the creation of a civilian security agency.
Could the Hon. Member enlighten us and give a clear, unequivocal and precise answer to this question: what is the exact position of the Progressive Conservative Party concerning the creation of a civilian agency? And perhaps he might try to be less evasive than the Hon. Member for Bow River?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is clear and unequivocal. It has been explained by our spokesman, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and it is this: there must be no breakdown between the security agency and the intelligence service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
At the beginning, during those studies . . . and the senators, as the Hon. Member must know, are free to think otherwise and to have their own opinion.
I do not remember exactly the dates on which the comittee sat, but in the final analysis, some of them were in favour of separating the agency from the RCMP, while only one Progressive Conservative Senator favoured integrating the Service within the RCMP. However, since then, following the study carried out by the caucus and the submissions made by the Attorneys General of the Provinces, it became obvious that the present situation needed to be cleared up; indeed, a Bill was required to resolve the problem, but there is no need to have the intelligence service separate from the RCMP.
June 21, 1984


Gaston Gourde: In its findings, the McDonald Commission recommended that a civil security service be created; on the other hand, the tenors in the Progressive Conservative Party have often rejected this very important recommendation of the McDonald Commission, even though they have often based their arguments on the findings contained in the McDonald report. Am I to understand that the Progressive Conservative Party supports and approves the McDonald Commission or is the Official Opposition against the general conclusions of this report?


John Carr Munro: The McDonald Commission made many recommendations, but as concerns separating the service from the RCMP, we do not agree with its conclusions. If I may say so, Mr. Speaker, this might be the first time that the Government is accepting the recommendations of a commission it has itself created. Generally speaking, the commissions appointed by this Government have been set up to delay matters. Indeed, when the Government does not want to make any decision, it appoints a commission to study the issue and finally comes to its own conclusions even though they may go against the recommendations of its own commissions. I am not necessarily referring to the McDonald Commission, but this acceptance by the Government of a recommendation made by a commission it has itself appointed is quite unusual.


David Kilgour: In rising to speak to Bill C-9, you will recall, Mr. Speaker-I think you were here last night-that many of us were here until five o'clock this morning. As a result, we are very tired today. We have not much desire to do anything with this Bill other than to throw it in the wastebasket. I do not think anybody, even Members of Parliament, should be asked to vote 130 times as we were last night.
Subject to that expressed concern today, I would speak on four aspects of the Bill, if I may, Sir; first, the question of the civilianization of the force, second, on the question of judicial warrants, third on the question of powers and civil liberties, and fourth, on the question of the review committee.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, my Party, and specifically the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) have made it very clear that we do not wish to see a civilian security force established, separate and apart from the security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or The "Force" as we call it in western Canada.
I should like to give eight personal reasons why I would not like to see the security force separated from the RCMP and civilianized. Perhaps I will state my bias in indicating that.
I have worked with members of the RCMP in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia as Crown Attorney over a number of years. I have strong respect, affection and goodwill for the force and its unique ability, recognized world-
Security Intelligence Service
wide to obey the law and do its work without fear of favour. As the House may know, that is the oath which every recruit takes when he or she is sworn into the force. I have the highest regard for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a western Canadian I am unhappy to see the force being told that it cannot handle the security service and that it will be civilianized.
First, the attitude of the Canadian people is the most important factor. One's personal views are not as important as the views of Canadians. I have been told that an opinion poll taken about a year or so ago indicated that 75 per cent, or three out of four Canadians, do not want to see the security service civilianized. If that is correct, the overwhelming majority of Canadians share my view, that it is not a positive step forward.
Second, what is the attitude of RCMP members? Having spoken with members of the force in Ottawa, and primarily in Alberta, both within and outside the security force, my impression is that they do not want the service taken away from them. They see a loss of career opportunities if suddenly a regular member cannot apply for the security service. It is a blockage in their career opportunities. In short, RCMP members in western Canada do not want to see the security service civilianized.
Third, what is the position of our allies with respect to this matter? We all know about Hugh Hambleton, and about other cases which regrettably have proven for one reason or another that Canada is not as secure as we would like it to be. My impression-and it is not based upon any survey or poll-is that our 15 NATO allies, including the one closest to us geographically, would not like to see the RCMP lose its identification with the security service. If my judgment is correct, our allies do not want to see this aspect of the Bill implemented.
Fourth, in my experience 99.9 per cent of RCMP members across Canada obey the law all the time, unless superior officers tell recruits or younger members to go and do thus and so. Very rarely will a member of the RCMP break the law. One of the issues confronting the McDonald Commission was whether or not practising politicians and Cabinet Ministers- and the House knows the names as well as I do-ordered the security service to carry on activities in Quebec which either tacitly or implicitly led to barn burning, stealing of membership lists and so on. Again, in my experience of dealing with the force over a decade, and complaints against it, its members do not break the law unless ordered to do so by superior officers. Indeed, as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), pointed out, maintiens le droit is the motto of the RCMP. In my experience, members of the force follow it better than any other force in the world.
I could exaggerate and say that someone recently graduated from university with a political science degree or a sociology degree could be made a member of the security service. However, a person who has been trained as a regular police officer knows more about investigating, obeying the law and dealing with various people than such a graduate.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Fifth, the Government has relied heavily upon the recommendation of the Mackenzie Commission a number of years ago which indicated in effect that the RCMP could not handle high technology and, therefore, we required a civilian security force to do the job. The RCMP is becoming thoroughly involved in high-tech. We could visit detachment offices in western Canada where we would find the RCMP well trained in the use of high technology on land, sea and air. The premise of the Mackenzie Commission that the force could not handle high-tech has been effectively overtaken by events. Therefore, in my view, that reason largely collapses and the Government does not have it to fall back upon.
Sixth, I should like to deal with the question of career opportunities for RCMP members now in the security service. The Government says that they will all be given jobs. However, members of the security service have indicated that if they wished to return to regular force work at the time of the establishment of the civilian security agency their chances would be very small. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) knows well that the amount of regular RCMP work in provincial contracts is becoming smaller. At the moment there are no recruits in Regina and there is no ongoing training, to my understanding. In effect the Government is telling them that they cannot return to regular police force work because there is little or none available, especially for someone who has worked in the security service for 10 or 15 years. That is unfair in terms of the careers and the good faith with which people joined the RCMP, thinking that they could return to regular police work if they wished to do so.
Another aspect of the matter is that regular members will not be able to go into the civilian security service from regular police work. That career opportunity will be cut, and I think it is undesirable.
Seventh, I should like to touch upon a matter I dealt with previously. According to the McDonald Commission-and the details seem somewhat hazy-the RCMP security service was ordered by political masters to conduct a number of illegal acts. I am worried that a civilian force would be subject to even more political control and direction than a group of men and women who have been trained since the day they entered the RCMP. You obey the law. You do not break the law. You do not step on people's rights.
The CIA is a civilian security service. Under bad or incompetent political management or both, it did things far worse than what the RCMP appears to have done during the 1970s. We have heard reports of CIA actions which are almost beyond belief in a civilized country. The CIA experience is an argument against having a civilian force in place of a force that has gained world-wide respect.
My eighth reason for not wanting a civilian organization is the McDonald commission itself. The Parliamentary Secretary cited the question to my colleague a few minutes ago; at least I think he did. The argument of the McDonald commission carries no weight whatsoever. Mr. Justice McDonald is an
Albertan. He and I knew each other as lawyers, and latterly when he became a judge. One of the reasons he was appointed to head the commission was that he was past president of the party opposite in Alberta. It was hoped that he would not create waves for the Liberal Government as a result of that appointment. In my view, he was not a suitable person to have been given that job. The test of the pudding was in the tasting. In my view, his report is not taken very seriously by many people in western Canada, at least by those who know Mr. Justice McDonald as I do.
Even while the three commissioners were sitting, if my memory is good, Mr. Gilbert continued to make donations to the Liberal Party-even while he was purporting to sit in judgment on his Liberal colleagues during the period in question. I know Mr. Justice McDonald well. I put it to you that his report is not to be taken very seriously when he calls for this to be taken away from the RCMP.
The second subject is the matter of judicial warrants. The Liberals want these warrants to be alive for a one-year period. The spokesmen for our Party have said that these warrants should collapse or expire after 60 days. We believe that is sufficient. I am told that a number of witnesses who appeared said the same, that we do not need year-long warrants. If you are concerned about civil liberties and the effective use of warrants, you do not need that period. I think that reflects the view of most witnesses, at least those concerned with civil liberties. The Government's refusal to accept amendments on that principle was unsound.
The third heading is the question of power. I refer to subclause 2(b) which in part states "intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada." They can unleash the whole panoply of arsenal tools against you. This includes opening mail and taking records, including medical records. There is a whole range of very severe actions that can be taken against you if it is decided that you fall within the definition of a security threat. We have argued, as did many of the witnesses, that that is too broad, that there must be a more narrow definition of security threat before triggering all of those actions I mentioned. Why will the Government not at least start with a smaller definition? If it proves too constrictive, it can go to a wider one. Why go to such a wide area if it is truly concerned about civil liberties in this country?
The fourth matter is the question of the review committee. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills said that the review committee should have access to Cabinet documents. The Government refused all amendments to that effect. If this Bill passes, as it obviously will, the review committee will not have access to Cabinet documents. I am told that nobody demolished the Government's position better than the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). He pointed out in committee that public servants and executive assistants see Cabinet documents, and even secretaries have access to them. The fact that the Government has taken the

June 21, 1984

view that Privy Councillors sitting on the review committee should not have access to Cabinet documents does not reassure one of its good intentions in this matter. Unless there are things going on in Cabinet that should not be going on, the Government should believe in the open, accessible and democratic principle through which this committee should have access to documents.
You have indicated my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat the point made by others. My Party wants an overview committee consisting of Members of Parliament. The security intelligence committee of the United States Senate consists of only elected Senators, albeit, to be elected to that committee you require the support of all other Senators. That guarantees that you have democratic and political control. It is a much better concept than what we have here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me make my points on the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions or comments.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, my colleague also spoke at length to the issue of separation. He seems to have forgotten that two important commissions, the McDonald Commission and the Mackenzie Commission, did come out in favour of separation or the creation of a civilian agency. The Pitfield Committee was also in favour of separation. He even made some allegations which, if we were not in the House and did not enjoy parliamentary immunity, would be a serious breach against the bench, for he implied that, for partisan motives, Mr. Justice McDonald had been influenced or . .. anyway, his remarks could have meant that.
However, that surprises me somewhat because he was referring to an Alberta judge. One member of his party, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and perhaps the Hon. Member might explain to me ... On February 20, 1984, as shown in Hansard on page 1545, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West said this:
I would personally tend to favour a civilian agency ...
I repeat, a civilian agency, referring to Bill C-9 and the civilian agency-
I would personally tend to favour a civilian agency with a director with much more responsibility to the Minister ...
That is exactly what we are advocating in the House today.
Under these circumstances, do the remarks of the Hon. Member against Mr. Justice McDonald apply as well to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question. I must say that I am not in complete agreement with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that the new service should be a civilian agency. I respect the opinions of the Member for Edmonton West, but as I said earlier, I have spent a lot of time with the
Security Intelligence Service
RCMP and I respect these people. I may have had longer experience with their officers than the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. I am convinced that the agency must remain under the aegis of the RCMP for the reason I have just given. The Hon. Member also said that both the McDonald and the Mackenzie Commissions recommended this separation. For the same reason, I do not agree with the findings of either Commission.
Finally, the Hon. Member even mentioned the Senate Committee chaired by Mr. Pitfield. He may not be aware of Mr. Pitfield's former activities; he was Secretary of the Cabinet for several years. In short, if I may say what I think about it, the Hon. Member should look for a more democratic, a stronger and a more effective source than the Pitfield Committee. For my part, as someone who strongly believes in a democratic government, chosen by the people because, or at least I should hope so, of its ability, and so on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any other questions? Debate.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) claims that he has listened to a wide range of advice and, on the basis of the advice he received, has brought forward a Bill which is the best Bill he could bring forward. The fact is, however, that a wide range of very responsible organizations with which the Minister worked closely before he became a Minister appeared before the Justice Committee, made representations, criticized important clauses of the Bill, made concrete proposals and drafted amendments which they believed would make the Bill better. All of those efforts were ignored and rejected by the Minister and by the Government.
We on this side have continually said that we accept the fact that Canada, like other countries, needs to have a security agency. We have said that we want a security agency which will do its job but will respect the rights of Canadian citizens, will observe the law and will perform its duties in a manner which will permit it to do its job while not infringing on the rights of Canadian citizens. I think the Canadian Civil Liberties Association put it very well in its brief, part of which reads as follows:
In the troubled and dangerous world of today, we do not, indeed we cannot, object to the performance of security and intelligence functions on behalf of the Canadian people and their institutions ...
But the endorsement of the goal does not carry with it a carte blanche for the means. The lessons of history demonstrate all too well the ease with which national security has been invoked improperly to curtail personal liberty.
We have heard a great deal of evidence about the fact that our security agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did in fact break the law. That particular assertion was made by the McDonald Commission. The RCMP did in fact break the law and infringe upon the rights of Canadian citizens on many

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
occasions. Its members were involved in kidnapping, barn burning, the theft of dynamite and the theft of the membership lists of a legitimate political Party. Those are just a few of the things which were done. Canadians learned of these facts almost by accident.
Again and again, we have been told that security operations must be kept secret or horrible things will happen. That is the position taken by the British security organizations. Yet many people who were very high in the British security service turned out to be double agents and spies for the Soviet Union. It seems to me that if they had not kept everything so secret, and if the public had been given more facts, those spies would have been discovered much sooner than they were.
In the United States, because the Congress has access to so much more information than Parliament, and because the American Freedom of Information Act gives the public access to so much more information than ours, both the FBI and the CIA were found to have committed acts which were absolutely contrary to the law. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. What we want is a security agency or service which lives by the law.
It has been suggested that we are asking for too much. It has been suggested that this Bill in fact meets the requirements of our country. It has been suggested that, as compared to an earlier Bill which was withdrawn, this Bill has met most of the objections of organizations and individuals to the earlier proposed legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The fact is that a host of very responsible organizations have made clear their objections to the present Bill. They have indicated how they think the Bill should have been drafted in order to have a security service which would do the required job, but would give the people of Canada the needed protection to continue to express their views and promote their policies as they should in a democratic country.
We have heard some of what I am about to say before, but I want to point these things out to the Minister because I think that what the Minister has done in bringing forward this Bill is to forget his past, to forget the things for which he supposedly worked in earlier years and to forget the belief in civil liberties supposedly held by members of the Liberal Party. He has brought forward a Bill which has been drafted by senior officials in his Department and in the security service. The Bill does not give organizations in Canada, some of which may hold views which are accepted by the majority of the people of Canada, the right to continue to do the things they wish to do and to advocate their views without being put under surveillance, without being infiltrated, without having their mail opened, without having their telephones tapped, all of which should not happen in a democratic society.
The Canadian Council of Churches includes all the major churches in Canada, except the Roman Catholic Church. It includes the Anglican Church, the Baptist Convention, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church and the United Church, to mention just a few. In regard to this Bill, the Council has said:
In our view. Bill C-9 is sufficiently broad in scope and vague in definition to permit intrusive surveillance in the form of electronic bugging of conversations, surreptitious entry of offices and homes, invasion of confidential records, mail openings and infiltration of social organizations, churches, agencies members and employees. It makes possible surveillance or interference with many lawful activities. It is inconsistent with our vision of the sort of Canada in which we seek to work and live.
The Canadian Council of Churches is a very large and well respected organization. Why would the security service want to do this kind of thing to the Canadian Council of Churches? If the security service does not want to do this type of thing, why does the Bill require a clause which would permit it to do so?
I would like to quote further from the brief which was presented by the Canadian Council of Churches which reads:
We are particularly concerned about the effect of broad interpretation of Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 2. Our submission is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work, and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.
The Council is not speaking without some knowledge of what might happen, because the World Council of Churches of which the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Scott, until recently, was the head, has been accused by some people in the United States of having given money to the African National Congress which was used for the purchase of arms. The World Council of Churches has denied that and has explained that the money they gave to the African National Congress was to be used for welfare and relief. If some people believe that about the World Council of Churches, obviously it would be quite possible and likely that the security service, as proposed in this Bill, would have the authority and might well intrude into the activities of the World Council of Churches.
I would like to quote from a submission which was made by the Canadian Association of University Teachers to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That submission dealt with the right, as provided in one clause of this Bill, for the security agency to keep under surveillance-which means the opening of mail, the wire tapping of telephones, and so on-foreign academics who visit Canada. The CAUT submission reads:
It seems to say. .. 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 the international affairs of Canada.
In other words, if a university professor from an eastern European country, who is in all likelihood a communist, comes here to give a lecture, arranged by a Canadian university which is interested in extending its knowledge of what is going on in eastern Europe, that professor who comes here for purely academic reasons could be put under surveillance by the security agency.
June 21, 1984

The CAUT suggested that a section be added which reads:
-a bona fide visiting foreign professor under contract to a Canadian university chartered by Her Majesty in right of Canada or any of the provinces.
The CAUT requested that section because foreign professors should not be placed under surveillance.
I would like to turn to the submission made by the Canadian Jewish Congress. It produced a tremendously well-documented submission at the time Parliament was discussing the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Congress has done a similar job in connection with this Bill. I would like to quote from their brief as follows:
Canadian Jewish Congress recommends that the members of the Review Committee be appointed by the Governor in Council with the consent of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and after consultation with the leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least twelve members in that House. This requirement for the participation of each major political party in the selection process is intended to provide the Committee with the benefit of expertise and independent judgment.
I believe what we ought to have is an oversight committee made up of elected representatives, as is done in West Germany and in the United States. The Canadian Jewish Congress does not go as far as that, but it makes it clear that it believes that the review committee should be appointed with the approval of not just the Prime Minister, who would call in the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of another Party and inform them of what the Government is doing, whether they like it or approve of it, and tell them who are the people who will be appointed. The Canadian Jewish Congress made the recommendation that the appointments should be made with the approval of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of any other Party which has 12 or more Members. What is wrong with that? What is wrong is that this Government is afraid to open the doors and let anyone except the trained seals whom it appoints see and do anything about what it is going to do.
The Congress goes on to say, in connection with the threats to the security of Canada, that the clause should have been amended to read as follows:
Unlawful activities directed toward undermining or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow, by violence, of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada;
In other words, there would not be surveillance, infiltration or wire tapping of those organizations which are expressing views and positions which they have the right to do in our democratic system. The security system would only be allowed to investigate organizations which have as their objective the overthrow or destruciton of our country by violence.
I would like to refer as an example to the province from which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde) comes. The security service had every right, and it had the duty, to investigate the FLQ and its activities. However, I would say to him that the security service had no right under the law, and certainly it did not have any right morally, to steal the membership list from the Parti Quebecois. We live in a democratic society. Parti Quebecois has said openly that it believes in the separation of the Province of Quebec. I oppose that view and I congratulate the people of
Security Intelligence Service
Quebec who have already, and who I am certain will again demonstrate by their vote in a free and democratic election, that they do not want separatism.
I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no reason for the security service to steal the membership list of the Parti Quebecois. And I suppose it will be 30 years or 40 years, if ever, before we find out whether it was done with the knowledge or without the knowledge, with the consent or without the consent, of the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice of that time. However, I say to the Hon. Member that that was inexcusable. It is for that kind of reason that we in this Party do not trust this Government. It illustrates why this Party will not vote for this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We would, however, vote for a Bill which gave the security service the power which it needs, but which would protect the rights of the Canadian people.
I would like to quote another section from the excellent brief of the Canadian Jewish Congress. The brief states that there should be a section as follows:
The Service is prohibited from investigating the affairs or activities of or engaging in surveillance of any person or group of persons solely on the basis of the participation by that person or group in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.
Let me again challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to explain-if one accepts that as a very reasonable proposal by the Canadian Jewish Congress-why the security service stole the membership list of the Parti Quebecois, and why after having committed that act, which the McDonald commission says was illegal, the response of this so-called Liberal Government is, "It was illegal before but we are now going to change the law to make it legal so we can do legally in the future what we did illegally in the past"? That is wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to hear the Solicitor General give me an explanation of why he seems to want that kind of thing to continue.

Mir. Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who seemed to suggest that there would be no actual protection for our rights and freedoms under Bill C-9. The Hon. Member probably ignored volontarily the list of review and control mechanisms provided under this Bill. Whether we are speaking about the Director reporting to the Minister, the Inspector General, the Review Committee, the reports to Parliament, the judiciary control in the issue of warrants, and so on, I do not agree that there will be no protection of individual rights and freedoms. I believe that, on the contrary, this Bill will, for the first time, provide official mechanisms to protect our rights and freedoms.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who said for instance that he did not trust the Government, whether the New Democratic Party is willing to trust those who will work for

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the new security service and how far this trust may go. Indeed, from what the NDP Members have said, anyone who works for a security service would need someone else beside him to monitor what he does and this second person would have to report to a third, who would report to a fourth or to a group which could be a Parliamentary Committee, and this would create such a massive agency or security service that it would no longer be able to serve its purpose.
In view of the circumstances, can the New Democratic Party tell the House to what extent they will trust the people in these services? Where does trust begin? Is it where ends the trust of those who work in the Departments or the people who work in the security services? This is what we want to know.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite clear that the criticism in the suggestions which I put on the record came not from me. I would not be surprised if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary took the view that I, or any other Hon. Members of my party are not really knowledgeable in this field or any other field. That is their usual approach. However, what I did, Mr. Speaker, was to put on the record the very valid questions, complaints and fears of respected, responsible, large organizations. The Parliamentary Secretary does not have to convince me that all the protections are there. He must convince those organizations. I have not heard any one of the organizations which made representations at the committee, wrote to the Minister or to any Member of Parliament, say, "Now you have your amended Bill, we are satisfied that our objections have been met".
I would like to do something which I do very seldom, Mr. Speaker, and that is to give a personal illustration. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary knows, but the Minister does, that nine Canadians, of whom my wife is one, are now in the process of suing the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington, D.C. for coming to Canada to a hospital in the Province of the Parliamentary Secretary and funding an experiment in mind control. How was it able to do that, Mr. Speaker? It is able to do that because the American Freedom of Information Act is so much better than ours. Investigators in the United States were able to obtain access to tens of thousands of pages of CIA documents from the 1950s and 1960s. Without those documents they could not have acted against the CIA. That could not happen in Canada, Mr. Speaker, because our Access to Information Act does not permit it. In fact, the Minister knows there are records of the RCMP having do to with security which are not 10 years or 20 years old, as in the CIA case, but they are 50 years and 60 years old, and they are still being kept secret.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, some of us have questions and doubts and suspicions about the way in which the security service in Canada has operated in the past, and the way in which it will be able to operate in the future, whether it be a civilian agency or the RCMP, given the law which we are going to pass today. And if some of us have some worries, the
Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should not be surprised.


Gaston Gourde: A very short question. Since Hon. Members from the New Democratic Party so often pick on the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the RCMP, how come they do not support the establishment of a civilian security service?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I think I have made it clear- and I am only speaking for myself at the moment-that the question of whether we are to have a civilian security agency or a security agency as part of the RCMP is not important. What is important to me, whether it be a civilian agency or part of the RCMP, is that it operate under the rule of law and that the law be very clear as to what the security agency can do. It should not be able to intrude, for example, into activities of legitimate churches, trade unions, peace groups or student organizations, and there is plenty of evidence to indicate that it has done so in the past. If this Act made it clear that it could not do those things, then we would support this Bill. However, the question of whether it will be a civilian agency or part of the RCMP is to me, personally, not important.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any more questions? Debate.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, just a week ago today I was speaking on the closure motion which was brought in at the last stages of the debate. That closure motion totally gutted the debate; the right to debate the Bill was taken away from us. Once that was removed, for many of us, especially those from western Canada, the debate was practically closed. Coming from central Canada, the Minister has perhaps overlooked the high regard we have in the west for the RCMP. They were a part of the west. They were formed to maintain law and order in the west. The RCMP as a whole is considered to be a friend of western Canada. In a sense the force was established as a result of the friendship it developed with the first people who lived out there, the native people. The force was fair, honest and it could be trusted. This above all is why the native people held the force in high esteem. This esteem has carried through to the modern day generation in western Canada. For those reasons this is perhaps something to which the people in central Canada have not given a great amount of thought. This is one of the reasons why we in the west are very suspicious about what the federal Government is doing with this legislation.
Why are we doing this in the last days of the so-called Trudeau regime? We have other Bills which will be carried over into the next Parliament. The Minister shakes his head, but there is a Competition Bill and the Bank Act. Goodness gracious, the Bank Act kept coming back through different sessions and even different Parliaments. There did not seem to be as much of a hurry with that as there is with the establish-
June 21, 1984

ment of the security agency. Why is the Government so intent at this particular stage on getting this legislation through the House of Commons? I referred to last Thursday as "Black Thursday", and I will call today "Black Thursday" because this is the day that this Parliament is going to pass this legislation. We spent seven and a half hours voting last night-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Not because of us.


Thomas Gordon Towers: -on this legislation, trying to impress the Government with the fact it should take a second look at it.
Another thing I have to ask is why is the new Leader of the Government Party not taking a hand in this? If he is going to do something for the west, as he promised us he is, I tell you that there is nothing better he can do for western Canada at this time than to put a hold on this legislation until such time as he is installed in office and can have a look at it. Apparently he has overlooked that. A great deal of distrust is created in the minds of western Canadians if he can do something but is doing nothing. He has a perfect opportunity here to ask his Minister to delay this legislation. There might be a spot in his future Cabinet for the Minister, or he could carry on as Solicitor General. I am sure my Party would agree with that. But the Government has to take a second look at this Bill.
In any event, I do not want this debate closed with a shadow over the image of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am satisfied that all Members of my Party would agree with me when I say that there does not exist a law enforcement body in any part of the world superior to the RCMP. Why, then do we have to distrust them when we set up this security agency? This is one area where my colleague and I from Winnipeg North disagree. He just said it was immaterial to him whether it was left with the RCMP or placed with a new agency. Well, it is not immaterial to us. We trust the RCMP. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) made a statement some time and I want to put it on the record. He said:
As a law enforcement agency the RCMP enjoys an international reputation; it is one of the best police forces in the world. They deserve our respect and our admiration for their success when enforcing the law. But in its security intelligence work-work that occasionally deals with sensitive political questions affecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens-the RCMP has been entangled in innumerable difficulties. Those difficulties centre on activities which are not acceptable in Canada, and we need to find a way to prevent them.
Isn't that some admission? The reason the RCMP got into trouble was because of Government interference. That came out in this House of Commons concerning the seizure of lists of Quebec separatists. Who inspired that? I am as sure as I am standing here today that the RCMP would not have done that had there not been some suggestion, either from provincial politicians or federal politicians.
My friend on the Government side is smiling. Well, we are good pals, and I bet he would agree with me on that very issue. There had to have been some influence there or the RCMP would not have done that. Why would they need to? They have other things to do. Therefore I am sure the suggestion was made somewhere along the line that this had to be done. So
Security Intelligence Service
the officer or officers set out to do a job and this is where the Government went wrong.
Take, for example, the October, 1970 crisis in Quebec. It was not the RCMP that created that situation, it was the Government. It did not give the required guidelines to the force. This is what an officer of the force told me. If they had been given the guidelines under which they knew they had to operate, they would have stayed within them. There is no guarantee that this new agency the Government is setting up is going to be under that kind of regimented control which exists in any force such as the RCMP. They are all subject to their superiors.
What guarantee do we have that the members in this agency are going to be under any kind of control? We have none whatsoever. That is why this debate is so strenuous. If the Government was satisfied and could prove to us, in a legitimate way, that it was right, and could prove to us that the new agency was going to be under adequate control, we would go along with it.
The Government is now bringing in legislation 14 years after the last act took place during the October Crisis in 1970. Why are they bringing it in at this particular time? The RCMP had been doing a reasonably good job until such time as the McDonald Commission was put in place. I believe it existed from 1977 to 1981. I was told at the time that the RCMP were kept so busy trying to dig up information at that particular time they did not have the manpower to do the job for which they were intended; that is trying to control any espionage which was taking place in the country.
The RCMP have been treated shabbily by the Government. I want all Canadians to know that. As far as western Canadians are concerned, as this Bill comes into force and effect, the image of the RCMP is held in as high regard in western Canada today as it ever was. Although the Government opposite questions that image, it does not mean that our feelings have been allayed. Western Canadians are loyal and they are loyal to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
I have a fear that we will never know how successful or otherwise this new agency will be. There is no way we will be able to measure what is taking place. We will not know about their successes or otherwise. That creates a real dilemma for all Canadians. We are not going to be secure in the knowledge that those people who have adverse opinions or ideas or want to get involved in espionage in Canada will be under control. This is one of the reasons we are concerned.
I will read an article into the record from The Globe and Mail of September 15, 1983. This relates to the Senate study of this Bill. The article reads:
A Senate committee now is studying the move to set up the agency. When the Senate makes its report, Mr. Kaplan said, "the Government will consider it and I've indicated I'm very amenable to amendments.''
The new bill "will respond to sensible suggestions" made during the Senate hearings, but he added he hasn't drawn up his own list of what might be retained when the bill is redrafted.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
This is when he was dealing with the former Bill, C-157. The article continues:
The changes would "not just be a question of editing but a question of principles."
However, Mr. Kaplan said no substantive change will be made in a much-criticized section of the bill that would allow members of the security service to take any reasonable actions which are "necessary to enable them to perform their duties and functions."
That section will stand because "the principle is already accepted across the country," the minister said. "People want members of the new agency to have the same protection as peace officers."
Mr. Kaplan suggested the wording of the article could be altered slightly "to find a formula that supports that principle."
"That's all we want. We don't want more protection" for members of the new agency than exists for peace officers, Mr. Kaplan added.
I think the Minister errs in that, Mr. Speaker. He needs more protection for the citizens rather than for these people who will be political appointees. That is another feature of this agency which frightens us. There is not an elected politician in Canada today who has any effect on the appointments within the RCMP, or at least they should not have. If they have, they are intruding into areas where they should not be involved. This should be left up to that body itself.
There is too much room for the Minister to manipulate the system. Once it is put in place, how is it changed? A lot of people are concerned about the placement of this body. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as well as other Members of the House, received this press release from the Canadian Medical Association. I will read it into the record. It reads:
Some parts of the federal government's proposed bill to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service threaten the confidentiality of Canadians' medical records and are against the best interests of both patients and their doctors.
This was the essence of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Canadian Medical Association to the chairman of the House of Commons Committee now studying Bill C-9.
Mr. B.E. Freamo pointed out three areas of the proposed legislation which should be of particular concern to the public.
Under Section 16 there is absolutely no protection for the patient against having his records examined and/or having his physician provide information about him over and above what appears in the record.
Section 19 appears to provide unlimited disclosure of a patient's medical information as the Security Intelligence Service sees fit.
Section 23 of Part II of the proposed bill authorizes the holder of a warrant to enter any doctor's office and take any patients' records found there.
Section 24(b) can be interpreted as directing physicians to release their patients' medical records if the physician believes "on reasonable grounds" that the investigator has a warrant. In other words, search and seizure may be carried out in the absence of a warrant if the physician is led to believe that one exists.
"I must express to you in the strongest possible terms the CMA's concerns over the potential mis-use and abuse of the information in medical records if the aforementioned sections are retained in the bill," reads the letter to Claude-Andre Lachance (MP Rosemont).
"Physicians may be reluctant to commit to writing information provided by a patient on a confidential basis if either the doctor of the patient believes such information can be obtained, used or disseminated by the Service."
Mr. Freamo added that patients would be reluctant to provide all relevant details of their illness to a doctor, thus affecting their chances of recovery. "This aura of distrust would be detrimental to the practice of medicine and certainly not in the best interests of the patient."
He concluded by requesting that the sections in question either be removed or at least modified to reflect the concerns of the medical practitioner for the rights of his patient.
We have been asked where this search and seizure stops. What happens if a mail carrier, while carrying mail to an individual, is accosted by an individual with a warrant to seize the mail? I am sure that the mail will be handed over and opened.
You have signified to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I do want to impress upon you and the Members opposite the high regard with which the RCMP are held in western Canada. Regardless of the implementation of this security agency, and regardless of what was said about the McDonald Commission, one of the questions that western Canadians ask first and foremost is whether any member of the force ever benefitted personally from any of these actions. The Mackenzie Commission and the McDonald Commission never once suggested that a member of the force ever received any personal benefit. I can say that this is where the line is drawn. Of course there was not, as far as the RCMP was concerned.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has indicated a sensitivity as well as an affection that is held by western Canada for the RCMP. Has it been explained to the RCMP that most of the officials in the new civilian agency might be drawn from the ranks of the RCMP?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Yes it has, Mr. Speaker. While the concern is not immediate, they are afraid of what might happen in the future. Those officials in the new agency will only be there for a certain period, because new people will be appointed as a result of retirement or the general attrition that takes place. We are as farsighted in western Canada as you members from Ontario. If it had not been for the farsightedness of Ontario people, I would not be here, because my stock goes back to Ontario.
Nevertheless, they are concerned about the future. The concern is that these people are appointed politically, by a minister or whatever, and they would rather see the members of this agency come up through the ranks of the force and be controlled through a regimental condition. They would feel much more secure with that rather than with these appointments.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member earlier mentioned the October 1970 incidents in Quebec. I would like to refer to the Pitfield Committee Report, which discriminated between a police force and an intelligence service. It is a very short quote:
The differences are considerable. Law enforcement is essentially reactive. While there is an element of information-gathering and prevention in law enforcement, on the whole it takes place after the commission of a distinct criminal offence. The protection of security relies less on reaction to events; it seeks advance warning of security threats, and is not necessarily concerned with breaches of the law.
June 21, 1984

Would the Hon. Member not agree that had we had in 1970, or the preceding years, a civilian security service as we now propose, we would have had every chance of getting advance warning of the unfortunate events of 1970? I am not implying this would necessarily have been an insurance against such acts, but at least we would have had all the chances on our side to find out whether the activities of those FLQ cells would not eventually lead to the events of October 1970.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am not an authority on it. I have always been very cautious to talk about what takes place in other provinces, because when people comment on matters in my province I want them to be very correct in what they say. Therefore I do not want to make any inferences.
However, I have tried to make the point that to my knowledge they were brought in after the fact. They were not given any guidelines with respect to searching to see what was happening. They were brought in after the fact. I am sure that the inference I drew in the House of Commons from listening to debate, questions and answers is that it was as a result of political influence that the RCMP was put into that position. If the RCMP had been left alone, or had been given a particular objective such as takes place with the Army in a war, and if they were given guidelines for that objective, they would not have been in the trouble they were. The RCMP were told to do something without being given any guidelines. I think everyone would agree that they accomplished their objective successfully because the operation was stopped immediately. For that reason I do not like to see them criticized at this point for doing something at which they were successful.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have always considered the Hon. Member to be a man of honour. I was somewhat disturbed by his remarks that he was sure that a political leader in Quebec or at the federal level instructed the RCMP to conduct the illegal acts in Quebec. He just repeated those remarks. He did not say that he suspected or thought that this was the case; he said he was sure. If he was sure it would seem to me that it is incumbent upon him to put forward in the House the facts upon which he makes that assertion. It was not a thought but an assertion. Knowing him to be a man of honour, I am sure that he would want to take the opportunity to do so. I ask him to do so now.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, all I am drawing on is the information and the retention of the knowledge that I gathered sitting as a Member in the House listening to debates, questions and answers. I mentioned that fact during this debate. The inference from those debates which took place is that a request went to the RCMP to do this. I would have to do some research to find it. I am sure that if it is in the House of Commons debates, it is in Hansard somewhere. I could not give it to the Hon. Member at the present time.
I am satisfied, and know that I did not dream it. In the days prior to the establishment of the McDonald Commission there
National Flag
were many questions and answers relating to what happened. It is as a result of that debate and those questions and answers that I arrived at that conclusion.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Would the Hon. Member indicate if the true feeling about why the RCMP would like to have the security service is that people in western Canada have felt that the present Liberal Government has done away with and desecrated all federal institutions in such a way that a new civilian institution would not have the same respect that an agency coming under the RCMP would have?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, that is a fair comment. This is one of the concerns of western Canadians. If any members opposite want to know why they have little representation in the House from the West, it is as a result of the loss of the traditions that we have lived by. We are losing another tradition. This is what irks so many people in western Canada. As far as we are concerned, the RCMP is a tradition. We are seeing that tradition desecrated, diffused and taken away. While this is taking place, the RCMP is being more or less slandered. That is why we in western Canada are standing up for the RCMP. My colleague is particularly right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! It being Five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['I declare Clause 5 defeated.\nClause 1 agreed to.']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 121 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Stand.



Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria) moved: that Bill C-234, and Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.

June 21, 1984
National Flag
He said: Mr. Speaker, first I understand there is agreement in the House to give unanimous consent so that we can attempt to get this Bill through all stages this afternoon during the hour we have for Private Members' Bills. You may want to ask for an expression of opinion from the other side to ensure that my information is correct, namely, that we do have unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order! The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Masse) has the floor.


Mr. Masse:: Mr. Speaker, it would indeed seem that all parties are in agreement to the Bill being passed today. However, some Hon. Members wish to express their views on the Bill, including the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). And I am sure the Hon. Member will have the opportunity to explain his proposal. Members on this side of the House will have the same opportunity.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly prepared to facilitate passage of this Bill in all stages this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House shall dispose of Bill C-234 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) at all stages before the conclusion of Private Members' Hour today?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cousineau).


Mr. Cousineau:: Mr. Speaker, before giving my consent, I would like to consult the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services, in order to be quite sure that we do have unanimous consent.


An Hon. Member:: The House has agreed.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my objection.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this Bill to be passed at all stages before the expiration of the hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.
The Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I assure you there have been considerable discussions about this Bill. I wish to thank my friends on all sides of the House for their concurrence. I understand the Government would like to make an amendment to the Bill. That has been discussed with me, and I am quite prepared to receive it at the appropriate time, which I imagine will be when we are sitting as a Committee of the Whole House.
The purpose of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, is to ensure that a high quality of material, design, and colour will be used in the manufacture of the Canadian flag. The objective is to reduce fading and other signs of wear which render our flags unsightly after a relatively short period of use. I have found, as have many Members, who attend international conferences and meetings, that if there is an outdoor part of the ceremonies we attend it is not unusual for a Canadian flag to be of very cheap design and not colourfast in comparison with flags of all other nations. This is embarrassing and is unworthy of this great country.
Several things have caused me to introduce this Bill. I was visiting in the United States a couple of years ago and I was asked to participate in a Chamber of Commerce function because they looked forward to having many Canadian tourists. I admired the Canadian flag beside the doorway to this Chamber of Commerce, but I found out to my surprise that it was made in Chicago. It had been outside for a couple of years, and looked much better than our flags do that are made in Canada. That started me working on this project which is coming to fruition today.
The rules concerning the Canadian flag are very meagre indeed. They are spelled out in the Proclamation of the National Flag of Canada. In heraldic terms it is referred to as "Gules on a Canadian pale Argent a maple leaf of the first". For laymen, a more comprehensible description is also provided as follows:
-a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width, containing in its centre a white square the width of the flag bearing a single maple leaf.
Strangely enough it does not spell out what colour the maple leaf must be. It is a red flag with a white square, so we automatically assume that a maple leaf is red, and we have become accustomed to that over the last 20 years.
This proclamation is the only official statement relating to the flag. There is neither legislation nor regulations governing the design, manufacture, or use of the Canadian flag. The only effort toward improving the quality of the flag has been made by the Canadian General Standards Board, the CGSB. It has established a committee on the flag made up of scientists, manufacturers, and other individuals, to devise technical standards for the fabric, dyes and processes to be used in manufacturing the flag. These standards are voluntary, and there is no effective means of establishing which flags meet the standards and which do not, that is, up to the present time.
It has been a considerable surprise to me why material manufacturers in the country seem to be able to find dyes that
June 21, 1984

are colourfast, except when it comes to the material of the Canadian flag. If there is one thing you can say about it, it fades to various shades of pink, orange, and brown, and tends to unravel very quickly at the fly end of it.
At the present time only price and size distinguish one new flag from any other. Consumers have no way of judging the quality of a flag or of knowing whether it meets the current CGSB standards. This Bill will create a legal obligation on the part of the CGSB to establish standards for flags intended for various uses, and will permit the identification of manufactures which meet the standard. The standard will continue to be voluntary in that flags may still be produced with cheaper material and methods. But purchasers will now be able to compare the quality of flags, knowing that those which meet the standard are of consistent and superior quality.
This Bill will ensure that flags which do meet the standards carry a trademark. I expect we will discuss this a little more in committee when we hear the government amendment, which I understand is to delete Clause 5 of the Bill.
Clause 4 reads:
All flags, whether manufactured in Canada or imported into Canada, which are manufactured in compliance with the standards for manufacture referred to in Section 2 shall bear a mark identifying that flag as having met the standards for manufacture established by the Canadian General Standards Board.
We will know when we are getting one that meets the standards that all others may or may not meet. I hope this will enable people to shop for flags with a great deal more certainty of what they are getting than they do at the present time.
I might also point out that this Bill will ensure and direct that the Canadian Government, which must be by far the largest purchaser of Canadian flags in Canada, to buy only those flags which meet the standards set by the Standards Board.
In view of the number of stages we will go through this afternoon, that is all I have to say by way of introduction, Mr. Speaker. I trust we will be able to run on schedule for the rest of the day, and I look forward to hearing the remarks of my good friend from Saint Jean.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I realize that we have an agreement to pass the Hon. Member's Private Bill with some modification, as has been discussed. That could happen earlier than the normal hour for the adjournment of Private Members' Business at six o'clock. So that the Opposition knows precisely what will happen at that time, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert automatically to Orders of the Day and the debate on Bill C-9, should we complete consideration of this Bill before six o'clock.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, that is our understanding of the arrangement as well.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Speaker, I believe we will concur with that arrangement as well.
National Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that at the conclusion of Private Members' Hour, the House will revert to the consideration of Bill C-9?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I am happy that this Bill is before the House. We are being asked to consider an Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada. I think it is about time. Also I think it is a good occasion to put a few thoughts on the record with regard to our national symbols, particularly our pre-eminent symbol, the flag. I often see occasions when the flag is not treated with the respect it deserves. Since we have agreement and we know that by order of the House the Bill will pass, I should like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts.
Every nation has its symbols. They serve to identify a people, to unite members of a group by appealing to their emotions, their sense of history, their deep human need to feel linked to previous generations and rooted in the land. Among Canadian national symbols are our arms and emblems, our flags and our national anthem. These symbols express, in striking imagery, the history, beliefs and aspirations of a people who inhabit a precise territory. They reflect its geographic characteristics, its flora and fauna.
The flag is a very early symbol for humankind. Reference to flags was made as early as 1122 BC when it was recorded that the Emperor of China had a white flag or banner carried before him. The word "flag" seems to have come into use in the 16th century and derives from an old Saxon or German word meaning to fly or float in the wind.
Flags have formed the focus of much action and attention. Carried into battle, they often served as a rallying point as troops tried to turn the tide to victory. Flags have draped coffins to honour the heroic war dead. Flags float over state buildings including, in Canada, our Parliament. Indeed they are an important visible symbol of national pride and unity.
Symbols are the manifestation of tradition. They are linked with historical or legendary events as a reminder of past and present forces which hold society together. The Government of Canada has always been aware of the importance of our national symbols and their proper and effective use. Since 1868 the Secretary of State of Canada has held responsibility for promoting understanding and awareness of Canada's national symbols and for organizing state ceremonies, with their attendant protocol and regulated use of our national symbols.
Symbols and other trappings of state form an extensive subject for study and control. Many of our symbols, even a number that precede Confederation in their origin, are original to this continent, for example, the flags and coats of arms of the provinces. Ontario, Quebec, and the Atlantic provinces all had their symbols before the fateful accord which saw the foundation of Canada. The Secretary of State (Mr. Joyal) is concerned with all these matters. When the provinces wished to make changes or additions to their coats of arms or their

June 21, 1984
National Flag
flags, the Department of the Secretary of State provided advice and access to royal approval.
It was also deeply involved in an important development in national pride-the final adoption of "O Canada" as our national anthem. This was not nearly as inventive as our creation and adoption of a new flag, for it had already been sung for 100 years, and there had long been little doubt as to what song would be chosen as the national anthem.
As the Guardian of State Ceremonial, the Department of the Secretary of State plans and directs state ceremonies such as the proclamation of the Constitution Act, the installation of a new Governor General, and state funerals, ensuring that proper protocal is followed.
Another important responsibility of the Secretary of State, which will be discharged very soon this year, is to plan, with the help of volunteer committees, a national celebration marking July 1. Of course it is on Canada Day that we see the most flags flying across the nation. Much of our symbolism descends from past events, sometimes even from semi-legendary sources shrouded in antiquity. Our own precious flag, while it is founded on precedents, is of relatively recent creation. There is no doubt that the Union Jack and the Red Ensign were held in great respect. They had flown proudly in Canada, and many Canadians had followed those flags to war, to fall, or to see their comrades fall in defence of their country. Yet there were Canadians who expressed the wish for a flag uniquely their own, and I was one of them.
Although the Union Jack was the official flag, an Order in Council passed on January 26, 1924, granted authority for displaying the Red Ensign with the Canadian Arms in the fly on suitable occasions from all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian Government and situated within Canada. This extended the use of the Red Ensign, which was formerly used properly only on vessels registered in the Canadian Mercantile Marine. The Blue Ensign was, of course, used on government vessels.
It might be of interest to read the following excerpt from the June 10, 1925, edition of the Ottawa morning Citizen:
Following in line with Australia and New Zealand, Canada is to have a new flag which will be recognized as the flag of the Dominion. The Government has passed an Order in Council appointing a committee to consider and report on the most suitable design for a Canadian national flag for use ashore.
This news was not greeted kindly by the Loyal Opposition of the day, and further action did not take place, to my knowledge, until the time of the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. Having promised the electorate a new flag, Mr. Pearson took upon himself the responsibility for carrying out this pledge. In the fall of 1963 he indicated that a maple leaf design would likely be chosen. He said that the crying need in Canada was for a patriotism which put Canada ahead of its parts, with national symbols which encouraged national unity and reflected Canada's status as an independent sovereign nation.
He declared his belief that a flag designed around the maple leaf would symbolize and would be a true reflection of the new Canada. Such a flag, he added, would not mean any disrespect for the United Kingdom or for the Union Jack and Red
Ensign. These Flags would continue to be flown as a symbol of our membership in the Commonwealth of Nations and of our loyalty to the Crown.
Mr. Pearson made the proposal for a new flag to Parliament in 1964. As occasionally occurs in a free Parliament, his proposal did not meet with unanimous consent. A very lengthy debate ensued. In supporting his concept of a new flag, Mr. Pearson said:
I believe we should have a national flag that stands for Canada alone, that flies as a symbol of Canada alone, that neither dishonours nor betrays the past but looks to the future; a flag that will say one word and that word is "Canada".
A parliamentary committee representing all Parties was established to study the question and make recommendations. The committee welcomed suggestions, and there was a very considerable response as briefs and design proposals poured in. After due consideration the committee finally proposed the design now in use.
It was a time of passionate debate and dispute throughout the nation, for symbols become dear and many Canadians experienced a sense of bereavement over the passing from official use of familiar flags and emblems. Yet the committee chose well.
This was evident for more than a single reason. As I would like to explain, it drew on a number of honoured precedents and so perpetuates established symbols. Our flag is described as a red flag of the proportions two by length and one by width, containing in its centre a white square the width of the flag bearing a single red maple leaf. The first flags to fly over Canada were the white standards of England and France. The English flag planted by Cabot in 1497 carried the red cross of St. George. The French flag placed by Cartier in 1534 bore the gold fleur de lis. Thus, the white in our flag.
It is much more official than that. The tremendous effort and sacrifice of Canadians in World War I earned Canada the right to sign the treaty that ended hostilities, as a free and independent nation. To mark this historic event in our development, King George V granted Canada a new coat of arms on November 21, 1921, and declared our national colours would be red and white, The crest of the coat of arms depicts a lion holding aloft a red maple leaf, a symbol of the sacrifice through which Canada obtained her independence. It is appropriate, therefore, that our flag bear the colours red and white and it is appropriate that it be made proper, red for valour, white for truth. The red is precisely the same shade as that used on the union jack and the red ensign. The presence of a red maple leaf in Canada's coat of arms is added validity to the choice of a maple leaf for the flag.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Especially on the Prairies.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I did not think we would have anybody heckling the flag today. The maple leaf has long been emblematic of Canada. Research by a former President of the Royal Society of Canada led him to conclude that the maple leaf was already looked upon as a fit
June 21, 1984

emblem for Canadians as early as 1700, if not before. Maple leaves were widely used for decorating purposes when the Prince of Wales visited in Canada in 1860. In 1868 they appeared in the first coat of arms granted by Queen Victoria to Ontario and Quebec.
The new flag was approved by the House of Commons and the Senate. The effective date of the Royal Proclamation of the flag was February 15, 1965. At 12 noon local time across the nation the red ensign was carefully lowered and a new flag raised. The scene was particularly colourful on Parliament Hill as the new flags unfurled in bright sunshine before a large crowd. I am sure-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. In terms of relevance, I should draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that the explanatory note contained on page 1A of the Bill states:
The purpose of this Bill is to ensure the quality of material, design and colour used in the Canadian flag for use within Canada in order to reduce fading and other signs of wear.
I appreciate that the Hon. Member has been establishing an historical basis for what, I presume, he will eventually come to, namely, the object of the Bill under discussion. I invite him to indicate to the Chair if he intends to do that soon.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I thought it was important on this occasion, when we are discussing the materials and colours of the flag, that we have some understanding of why it is important. That is what I was trying to establish. We are not debating a frivolous Bill, but something that is of extreme significance to the nation. I respect Your Honour's remarks, but I believe the history and significance of the flag are something that should necessarily be brought to the nation from time to time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has no dispute with the quality of the Hon. Member's oratory or his historical knowledge of the basis and foundation for the establishment of a Canadian national flag. The title of the Bill is: "An Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada". Interesting as his remarks are, and respectfully as the Chair may be listening to them, nevertheless under our Standing Orders the Chair has an obligation to invite the Hon. Member to be a little more relevant to the motion now before the House.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, on your injunction I will dispense with the remainder of the history and protocol that I was going to speak about, and get directly to my remarks concerning this important Bill. It can be seen from my remarks, and I know you have been listening, that it may well be concluded that the Government of Canada holds its national symbols in great esteem, including the flag.
The one important remaining action with regard to the flag is, I believe, the proposed standards in this Bill, which set out the requirements to ensure that our flag is produced in the correct colour shade, and of fabric of suitable weight and durability. It proposes that the Canadian General Standards Board establish standards for manufacture of the national flag
National Flag
of Canada corresponding to its intended use, under varying conditions, including use indoors and outdoors, one-event use, and such other uses to which the Board may determine that the national flag of Canada may reasonably be subjected.
The Act states that, upon establishment of approved standards, no Crown corporation, Department, branch, agency or office of the Government of Canada shall purchase or use other than a national flag of Canada manufactured in compliance with the standards for its manufacture and use as set out in such standards as may be established by the Canadian General Standards Board from time to time. Flags manufactured in compliance with the national standards shall bear a mark identifying them as having met those standards.
I submit that the Act meets an important requirement, that of ensuring the quality of that important symbol of national pride, our flag. The very nature of this national symbol demands that consistency and quality be beyond question, an absolute certainty.
Parliament expended much thought and energy on producing the design of a flag that would be accepted by the people of Canada as a national symbol. The final legislative step, as I mentioned earlier, seems to be the current proposal to ensure that our flag is correct and of good quality, a fit object of affection and inspiration for all Canadians. I hope Canadians will learn the protocol on how a flag is to be flown. That may be irrelevant to this Bill, so I will not go into it. In closing, I congratulate the Hon. Member for Victoria on bringing this important Bill before the House.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I rise in support of Bill C-234. I join the former speaker in commending the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) on bringing this Bill before the House. Some people might say this is not all that important an item, but it is. It is small, but it is important. It deals with a national symbol, the flag.
Surely the flag is one of the most important of our national symbols. It is a symbol that all members of Canadian society, regardless of where we live and what our backgrounds are, can look up to as one of those common elements that remind us of the grandeur and the history of our land. It gives us something about which we may feel united. The sight of that flag, that symbol, faded and ragged, flying limp on some mast, with pieces of it torn away, conveys to me a disrespect for the symbol as well as a disrespect for the country. We are a young and vibrant country. When I see the flag in a ragged and faded condition, I feel that it conveys something that we are not.
I am generally not much of a sentimentalist. I think that symbols can at times be overused. I would say, quite honestly and openly, that something stirs within me when I leave my office late at night and look up to the Peace Tower and see our flag flying in the wind lit up by a spotlight. Something stirs within me because symbols do have the power to evoke certain emotions. I think our flag is an honourable flag, because the

June 21, 1984
National Flag
history of our country is an honourable history. We have done no malice to people in other parts of this world. Therefore, we can be proud of our symbol.
I cannot help but take the odd dig at the political Parties in this House. It is a bit ironic that a member of the Conservative Party is asking for a bit of government regulation to govern the standards of our flag. Perhaps it is a slight indication that the free enterprise system and the market system have not produced a quality item, and that we do need an Act of Parliament to make sure that we do have a quality item in our flag.


Mr. Crosby:: We call it consumer protection.


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is called consumer protection. So be it, Mr. Speaker. Of course I agree with this proposition and feel that we do need the standards called for in Bill C-234.
I also wish to take a dig at my friends and colleagues across the way. It seems to me that government Members sometimes overuse the symbol of our flag. When they begin to do that, they begin to degrade the potency that a symbol can have. If they begin to use the symbol on every letterhead, for every commercial enterprise and for every political enterprise, the symbol will be over used in the end and it will become degraded. People would then begin to associate the flag with only a Liberal symbol. In the process, something would be lost. I think even the Government and the Liberal Party would lose something because Canadians would begin to feel that the Canadian symbol, our flag, is being used in inappropriate circumstances and that that misuse degrades our flag.
I was in my early twenties when the flag debate occurred, so I remember certain aspects of it and I remember the strong and very legitimate emotions that it evoked in the people. It was a stage in our growing up as a country. Not at that time being active in electoral politics, I sort of chuckled to myself. There was a part of me that said: "How truly Canadian this is that we, in a country which is nearly 100 years old, are still debating whether or not we should have a flag, still debating what type of symbol we should have." In some ways I think that was typical of our history, of our evolution as a country and of our growth to maturity.
We were not born in a revolutionary fervour. We came to exist in a way which some people would call very Canadian, which is to say very gradual. Our traditions and institutions evolved to become more and more responsible. We became more and more independent. It was a slow evolution. The passage of the Act that established the maple leaf as our flag was just one more stage in our growth toward greater maturity.
The Bill that is now before us is one more step in that same direction. It seems to me that at the time the legislation that established the maple leaf as our national flag was passed, the Government of the day should perhaps have thought in terms of establishing some standards. It has taken some 18 or 19 years for a member of the Conservative Party to introduce a Bill that corrects that oversight which occurred so many years ago.
I do not wish to speak I think that there is an agreement among all Members of all Parties of the House that this Bill be passed. I simply wanted to rise to indicate the support of our Party for this Bill and to indicate some of my own personal feelings about the Bill and about our great national symbol, the flag.


Paul-André Massé: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
I also wish to take this opportunity to thank my hon. friend from Regina East (Mr. de Jong) and to inform him that it is quite normal for a Government and for Canadians who are proud of their country to display the symbol of that country. I do not think this could be qualified as "over-use".
I also wish to thank the Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) for talking to us about the history and symbolism of our flag, to explain why, today, the Hon. Member for Victoria is presenting Bill C-234.
I am sure that I am speaking for all Members of this House and for all Canadians when I say that the sight of a ragged national flag flying from buildings does not fill me with patriotic pride. If it is to be a symbol of national unity, displayed throughout the country, I think we should all make an effort to ensure that our flag and the brilliance of its colours reflect the respect of all Canadians for that symbol. I am of course aware that in the case of flags flown from federal buildings, these are quickly replaced as soon as they start showing signs of wear.
If we can do anything at all to extend the wear of these flags, I am sure all Members of this House will agree that it is worth the effort.
The purpose of the Bill is to establish national standards for flags manufactured in Canada or imported from abroad. Hon. Members are probably aware, Mr. Speaker, that in 1974, the Canadian General Standards Board published a national standard for the Canadian flag. Another version of this standard was published a little later, in May 1979, as the national standard. Since then, there have been two revisions, the last version being published in April 1983.
The standard applies to all materials, designs and colours used in manufacturing, and as such, seems to answer most of the questions regarding the Bill. It may, however, be necessary to have a majority of members of the Committee of the Canadian General Standards Board examine the contents of the standard and revise this document to bring it into line with the intent of our legislators.
That being said, I would like to refer to Clause 5 of the Bill, which requires that the Canadian General Standards Board certify manufacturers or importers of the flag.
June 21, 1984

At this point, I would like to make it clear that the Canadian General Standards Board is not a certifying body. In this respect, its role consists in keeping a set of lists of names of companies that have agreed to comply with certain standards.
As a general rule, the Government prefers private companies to be self-regulating in the matter of complying with national standards, and to do so by establishing their own certification procedures. Business and industry have been complaining for some time about Government interference in their affairs. After all, a company's survival depends on manufacturing goods that are acceptable to the buyer. Consequently, it should be enough to let the market play its role. A responsible company, knowing that its products will be evaluated according to a national standard, will use its judgment and business acumen without the Government breathing down its neck, which means that the company will ensure that its products at least meet if not exceed the standards published by the Canadian General Standards Board. If the CGSB were to act as a certifying body, a number of problems could result. Manufacturers or suppliers might be tempted to drop their own quality control programs or let the certifying body take over this kind of inspection. In case of any problems or complaints about a product, the manufacturer or supplier might try to blame the certifying body. There would also be a number of legal and political liabilities for a Government approving a private company's products, if the products do not meet the usual standards.
I suggested earlier that we let the industry regulate itself, and I think that is the answer. Some companies might ask the Canadian Textile Institute or the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, for instance, to set up a certification program. Manufacturers or suppliers could also retain the services of private certifying bodies such as Underwriters Laboratories of Canada, Warnock-Hersey or the Canadian Standards Association.
Mr. Speaker, all these organizations enjoy the trust of the public and exist for the purposes mentioned. There are equally reputable organizations such as the Ontario Research Foundation and the Retail Research Foundation of Canada, and I am sure there are others as well.
After discussing these matters with the Hon. Member for Victoria, who presented the Bill, I am now able to announce that he has agreed to the removal of Subsections 1 and 2 of Clause 5 which stipulates that the Canadian General Standards Board is to be responsible for certification.
Mr. Speaker, considering this spirit of co-operation, I have no hesitation in supporting Bill C-234, provided those subsections are removed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?
National Flag


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is moved by Mr. McKinnon that Bill C-234, An Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada, be read a second time and by unanimous consent referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read a second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Corbin in the chair.
Eymard G. Corbin: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-234, an Act to establish standards for the manufacture of the national flag of Canada.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
[ Translation]
On Clause 5-Certification of manufacture or import


Paul-André Massé: Mr. Speaker, as agreed with the Member for Victoria and as I mentioned earlier in the House, I wish to move an amendment that consists in removing Clause 5 with Subsections 1 and 2, in other words, Clause 5 would be removed altogether from the Bill.


Eymard G. Corbin: Normally, amendments are to be presented in writing. In any case, the Chair must inform the House that it cannot accept this kind of amendment.

I would draw to the attention of the House that the Chair would have to reject the amendment. I would like to quote in support of that ruling Citation 773(6) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment to delete a clause is not in order, as the proper course is to vote against the clause standing part of the bill.
Therefore, if the objective of Hon. Members is to delete Clause 5 which is now before the House, the Chair would invite them to vote against that particular Clause when it is called. In other words, if everyone says, "no", the effect will be that Clause 5 will disappear from the Bill.
Shall Clause 5 carry?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Eymard G. Corbin: I declare Clause 5 defeated.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, and Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read a third time and do pass.
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting to be returning to Bill C-9, the Bill which will establish a civilian security service, after the House has debated standards for the manufacture of the Canadian flag. That debate evoked a great deal of patriotism. I certainly enjoyed that debate. I do not express any shame in being a Canadian patriot. I remember being very pleased when I saw the Canadian flag unveiled for the first time. I think that it is very much as a patriot that I express shame at what is before us today in Bill C-9.
Yes, we do need a civilian security service. Canada is a middle power, not a major power in the world. Our security needs are not as great as some other countries, nevertheless they do exist and we require an appropriate service to deal with them. Our requirements for national security are not as great as those of the United States. Some of the remarks which I will make this afternoon will deal with our safeguards. The safeguards which are in this legislation are not as good as the American safeguards, even though our own security needs are not as important as those of a major power such as the United States.
I think it would be useful in addressing this issue to examine a bit of the history in order to realize how we came to be in the state which we are with regard to Bill C-9. It does bear some relevance to what is wrong with the Bill as it currently stands. We will all remember that it was in a criminal trial in 1976 that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police security service were discovered to have been involved in criminal wrongdoings. In 1977 the McDonald Commission was established. It sat until 1980, and it reported in 1981. At that time it was extremely critical of the practices of the current RCMP Security Service. It reported evidence of criminal wrongdoing in four provinces, but there were prosecutions only in the province of Quebec. The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) has said that there will not be further prosecutions, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has referred to disciplinary action to be taken against the culprits in question. But in fact we have not been advised of any specific disciplinary action which has been taken against any of them.
I do not want to agree with all of the provisions and recommendations of the McDonald Commission. In some places I would consider them too lax. Nevertheless, it did come
up with a number of safeguards which should be built into the legislation for a civilian security service, and most of these recommended safeguards have been ignored. We saw them ignored in Bill C-157, and they are still left out of the current legislation. It was in May, 1983, that Bill C-157, the predecessor to Bill C-9, was tabled. It was met with denunciations from provincial attorneys general, civil liberties organizations, church groups, and from all kinds of private citizens all across the country. My own Party strenuously opposed this legislation. I regret to say that the Conservatives were not quite as vigorous in their opposition. Some of those Hon. Members, indeed, thought that the safeguards in Bill C-157 were quite adequate and, indeed, it was a rather civil libertarian kind of Bill.
I am very pleased to see the Conservatives have come along and are now joining in very concerted opposition to this very drastic and draconian legislation.
A Senate committee was established to hold public hearings on the old Bill, C-157, last summer. I cannot say anything too good about Senate committees. My own Party would like to see the Senate abolished. Certainly most of us feel very strongly that there should not be an appointed Senate, that elected people should be the people to do this. Our own Members, of course, were not involved in the Senate committee hearings because we do not have members in the Senate. Nevertheless, even with this rather senatorial committee looking at this Bill and holding these hearings, it did come up with some recommendation for additional safeguards. You might say it is a body not known for vigorous stands on civil liberties, but nevertheless it did see the need for additional safeguards. I regret to say that the Government did not even act on the advice of the Senate which is, by and large, appointed by the current Liberal Government.
Bill C-9 which is before us today is only very slightly changed from Bill C-157, and this whole process of consulting the public and holding hearings has really been a charade. In effect what Bill C-9 does is to make legal many of the activities which were condemned by the initial McDonald Commission and by the Canadian public. We had an example of wrongdoing, and what was done about it? Was it stopped? No, it is made legal. That is how we deal with wrongdoing on the part of the security service. We have 800,000 files opened against Canadian citizens. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, you can persuade anyone in this House that there are 800,000 terrorists or spies operating in Canada. We have a Government which has overreacted in how it has dealt with security matters in the past, and it has overreacted in trying to deal with security matters in the future by legislating a civilian security service with inadequate safeguards and far too many powers.
We are faced with the prospect of the opening of first class mail, wiretaps, doctors' and lawyers' records being invaded, people being bugged in their homes and offices, and all of this in the name of national security. Many of these activities certainly went on previously even though they were against the
June 21, 1984

law and we now have this very shameful approach, instead of stopping it, that it would be made lawful.
1 want to argue this afternoon basically three things which I believe are wrong with the Bill before us. First of all, the threats to security have been ill defined. They are far too broad. Second, the powers which have been given to the civilian security service are far too great. There is no proportion. It is given excessive powers even for dealing with quite trivial matters. Its excessive powers are not confined to major instances of threats to national security but can even be used for information gathering. Third, the accountability procedures are far too weak. They are thoroughly inadequate.
I would like to refer to a brief which has been submitted by a physician, Doctor Philip Berger, on the definition of "threats to security of Canada" from his experience. While this is an individual brief it does represent a considerable amount of opinion from a professional community. Doctor Berger reports that many physicians in Canada have examined and documented the cases of persons seeking refugee status in Canada who were tortured in their own home countries. The results of these investigations have been used to substantiate claims of torture for the classification of refugee status under the Immigration Act. They have also been used to expose human rights violations by foreign Governments.
This kind of activity can lead to a perfectly normal law-abiding physician being targeted, and the groups which are using the information obtained in these physical examinations could be targeted for intrusive surveillance. These physical examinations, medical examinations, have been used by groups within Canada who are opposed to totalitarian regimes. But some of these groups are perceived to advocate threats or use of acts of violence for the purpose of achieving a political objective within a foreign state. That brings it within the definition of a threat to security.
Some physicians are members of organizations which donate money to opposition groups in foreign states, who defend themselves in violent confrontations with their Governments. Clearly, these physicians are engaged in activities directed toward helping opposition groups trying to achieve a political objective within a foreign state. That makes them come under the definition of "threats to the security of Canada", preposterous as this may seem.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has noted a number of instances in which groups could be targeted for activities which, I believe, any normal person would consider quite appropriate, quite lawful and, indeed, quite laudable. There is within the Act a definition of activities directed towards certain types of security related misconduct. To what extent could this invite speculation about security threats which might happen at some indefinite point in the future? Consider, for example, the power the Bill would create for intrusive snooping into activities within Canada, directed toward or in support of acts of violence for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or foreign state?
This Section could mandate the use of bugging procedures, for example, or mail opening against a Canadian citizen, who,
Security Intelligence Service
without any foreign direction whatsoever, took up a collection for the State of Israel or the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Suppose such citizens got involved with rebels in El Salvador or even in Afghanistan and raised money for them? That certainly makes them liable to intrusive investigation.
Another Subsection would make intrusive surveillance available for activities intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada. What does "ultimate" mean? "Ultimate" is certainly a very long way away. It may have no immediate connection with any kind of violence or any kind of serious activity whatsoever. It is highly speculative that some activity carried on by what could be a perfectly lawful dissenting group could bring it under surveillance.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association may draw inspiration, or may be seen to draw inspiration, from the American Civil Liberties Union. Does this mean that that organization is foreign influenced? What are the limits of detrimentals? Supposing a Canadian citizen were employed by a foreign corporation involved in commercial negotiations with the Canadian Government-obviously an activity which happens all the time-this would permit targeting of such an individual. Bill C-9 is a threat to law-abiding people and legitimate dissent.
In the opinion of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, this threat will continue so long as intrusive surveillance is permitted on the basis of such shadowy, ethereal and overbroad concepts as "activities directed toward", "ultimate" intentions, and "detrimental" interests. There is supposedly an exemption for activities such as lawful advocacy, protest or dissent. But this is not an adequate definition. It is not clear that activities such as fund raising or commercial negotiations would be included. But some of the activities I just mentioned could be kept out of the exemption section and the group concerned could then come under surveillance by the security service.
There is good reason to question how much additional security is obtained through this level of preventive intelligence gathering. There have been plenty of instances in the United States, and the American Government has moved away from this kind of vague fishing expedition to try and get intelligence from groups engaged in quite lawful dissent. It has simply not come about that any additional security has been obtained from this. Generally, the FBI did not report advance knowledge of planned violence. We really cannot have any hope that by having these Draconian measures we will actually achieve any national security objectives.
Between Bill C-157 and Bill C-9 a few amendments were made but they did not in any significant way increase the protections given, so that the kind of criticism we have been raising still largely holds. These very modest wording changes have not been at all adequate to the task. The NDP has proposed much more substantial amendments. We have passed the stage where we can get them through, but to give you an idea of the kind of constructive alternative we see as appropri-

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ate-yes, we do need a civilian security service and it does need to have powers to do things but it must have adequate safeguards. We do have some constructive proposals and we would like to see the Government abandon the Bill as it is now, hold some public hearings and listen to the citizens it has been elected to serve. It can then come back with legislation which would provide adequate protection for the civil liberties we want to have in Canada.
This would mean changes in the definition of threats to the security of Canada. We want to be sure that so-called domestic subversion is not included in this section. The RCMP should continue to have a mandate to deal with domestic subversion according to criminal standards, a procedure which has been used and a distinction which is accepted in the United States. We do not know how serious this threat of domestic subversion is, but we think, in so far as we are going to need it, the ordinary criminal operations of the RCMP with the ordinary standards and safeguards would be the most appropriate way of dealing with these threats.
The criteria for security assessments is another point on which the Bill goes much too far. Too many public servants are subjected to security clearance procedures. In 1982 over
75,000	people were security cleared. It is just very hard to imagine that the threat of spies in the Public Service of Canada is so serious that we need this large number of clearances. The criteria should be spelled out in the Statute or, at the very least, provision made for criteria established by regulation to be made public and subject to review by an oversight committee. The civilian security service should not have responsibility for conducting the security assessments. Their role should be restricted to threats to the security of Canada. Either the RCMP or a branch of the Public Service Commission, as recommended by the McDonald Commission, should have the job.
As to the foreign intelligence function, the Bill would confer new and unprecedented powers on the civilian security service to target individuals who pose no threat to the security of Canada. This could include political refugees, visiting professors and business or labour leaders. This power does not currently exist and there is absolutely no justification for it being included in the legislation.
On the exchange of security information, the Solicitor General has stated that the RCMP security service presently shares information on Canadians with foreign security agencies, including those which do not have proper recognition in their own country. This is a rather dicey procedure at the best of times, but this Bill would codify this practice.
We need a much more adequate review process. The McDonald Commission and many witnesses recommended that there be a Parliamentary oversight committee. Other countries have them. They need full access to Cabinet documents and the information the security service itself has so that it can ensure there have not been violations of civil liberties.
Apart from powers of electronic surveillance and surreptitious entry, as well as the power to make copies of records, there is no justification whatsoever for the expanded powers
sought by the new agency. Even the McDonald Commission recommended that intrusive techniques not be used against domestic subversives. Where we use these intrusive measures, there has to be good reason for it. The threat has to be a serious one. They should not be used on fishing expeditions or for security clearance and things of that sort. The RCMP Commissioner stated that if he were denied access to these intrusive powers, his ability to perform his duties would be impaired only to a "very, very marginal extent". Yet the potential invasion of privacy is incredibly broad. Here we have this threat of far too expensive powers being used even where there are not serious matters of national security.
This Bill would arbitrarily deny collective bargaining rights to virtually all employees of a new service. That is simply inappropriate and unfair. When we compare the safeguards in the U.S. with those here, we see that the Americans and the FBI have far more adequate safeguards. They have to show standards that are similar to ours for criminal investigation, and it gives a far better understanding to the people in this system of what they are legally entitled to do and what they are not.
Our Bill, however, has one merit that the Americans do not have. These safeguards, if we had them, would be legislated. Here we have before us a Bill which would do a desirable thing. It would institute a civilian security service and legislate its powers clearly for all to see, as well as the safeguards. The problem is that what is legislated by way of safeguards is fairly inadequate.
The options before us are quite simple; either to pass the legislation as it is and bring in a new era of substantial abuse of Canadian civil liberties, or we can go slower, the Government can not proceed with the Bill. We have a security service in place. The RCMP are performing that function right now. There is no risk of harm by taking another look to see that we have adequate safeguards.
I see my time is just about up. I want to say that I am very distressed at what we have before us today. It is an interesting point that we see this at the end of the Trudeau period in Government, a piece of legislation that would violate Canadians' civil liberties. We see a former civil libertarian at the end of his parliamentary career bringing in a despicable piece of legislation. It is a sad way for someone to go, and I am sad to see this legislation before us. Last night we had the example-


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order. The Chair has been very considerate to the Hon. Member. She has been extended extra time. I have to inform the House that her time has expired. A 10 minute question and comment period is now provided for. Are there any questions or comments. For debate, the Hon. Member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby).


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, we are now proceeding to the final stage of the deliberations in the House of Commons on Bill C-9 which enacts the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It has been a tedious pro-
June 21, 1984

cess, but it has not provided sufficient time in terms of the close examination which ought to be applied to the legislative provisions contained in Bill C-9. The debate is under the strictures and duress of time allocation or closure. Members of the House of Commons are restricted in the amount of time they can devote to the debate on this legislative measure and the provisions of Bill C-9.
It becomes necessary in the final hours of this debate to explain in clear and careful terms what one's position is with respect to this legislation which deals with the security of the citizens of Canada and Canadian institutions. I will explain very carefully my own position. I recognize that there is a potential for threats to security in Canada. I recognize that our democratic society allows a large measure of freedom for its citizens and all residents of Canada, regardless of whether they enjoy the status of citizenship. Within that conglomerate of people there could be those who would harm our society and institutions. The principle of freedom and liberty ought to prevail over all threats, including threats to the security of the nation. That is why this nation was created in the first place. Democracy was established and survives because we believe in freedom. The risk of that belief is that we must recognize that there is the potential in our society for the destruction of our own democratic institutions.
When the predecessor of Bill C-9, Bill C-157, was before the special committee of the Senate, the Senators who dealt with the legislative provisions contained therein recognized the need for that balance between the handling of threats to our society and liberty. They said as a committee that that balance must be maintained. That was the test which governed security legislation. I do not think the members of the Senate committee directed the balance in the right way. That is to say, the members of that committee were prepared to err on the side of protection of society, in the way in which they envisioned that protection, rather than to err on the side of liberty of the subject. The real protection of Canadian society is the liberty of the subject. It is not the laws that are designed by legislators that protect the society. It is the principle of liberty of the subject that protects society.
That principle was established long ago in the mother country of Great Britain. It continues there today, notwithstanding parades to Trafalgar Square and mass movements of labour supporters and ban the bombers which my colleague from Dartmouth-Halifax East has seen on many occasions in the streets of London. Notwithstanding that apparent almost revolutionary attitude, liberty survives in the United Kingdom as it survives nowhere else in the world. If we allow that tradition of liberty to be eroded because of real or alleged threats to Canadian institutions arising from subversion or breaches of security, we may endanger the very society that we are trying to protect.
It is in that context that I want to examine the provisions of Bill C-9 for the last time. We must recognize the need for a balance between the protection of society and the absolute need for civil liberties to be maintained throughout Canada. It is interesting to note that the sponsor of this Bill in the House, 80152-38
Security Intelligence Service
the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who now sits in his seat, would in most respects be the advocate of civil liberties. In the debate which involves Mr. Sakharov and Mr. Shcharansky I am sure the Solicitor General would be the first to endorse the right of peaceful dissent as a principle of democratic society. I am sure the Solicitor General would be willing to write to the ambassador from the Soviet Union and ask why Mr. Sakharov and Mr. Shcharansky have been treated in the way in which they have been. I am sure he would ask why their liberties are restricted simply because they disagree with the duly constituted, if not elected, government of the Soviet Union.
If we are going to apply the principle of peaceful dissent to citizens of other nations, particularly those which we do not regard as democratic, then we had better be darn sure that we allow for that same kind of peaceful dissent in our own country. Does that make me, or any other Member of the House of Commons who endorses that principle, an advocate of peaceful dissent? Does that colour me as a revolutionary? Does that make me a foe of the system and an enemy of the country? Of course not. I am here to protect the citizens of this country. That is why I examined Bill C-9. I say that it is tipping the balance in the wrong direction and does not recognize, to the extent that it should, the liberty of the subject.
At this stage of the deliberations on Bill C-9 we cannot examine the provisions of the Bill in detail. That was done under the constraint of limited time provided by the closure order imposed by the Government majority. We in the Opposition cannot fight that. All we can do is to explain once again what our position is and what the concern of Canadians ought to be.
I will mention another incident in the House of Commons which dealt with the civil liberties of Canadians. It was passed under the guise of urgency and the need for immediate action. On October 25, 1983 the House of Commons passed Bill C-169 which amended the Canada Elections Act. It made some very useful changes to that Act.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You voted for it.


Howard Edward Crosby: One of the changes which was made related to advertising during election campaigns. Members of the House who were interested in improving the Canada Elections Act wanted those changes instituted because some of them would be very helpful to the electorate in the important task of choosing its representatives in the Parliament of Canada. We wanted those reforms to take place. However, not all Members were aware that an amendment to Section 70.1 might have the effect of outlawing legitimate protests in the form of election period advertising. No one was aware of that. The haste with which Bill C-169 was passed by the House of Commons caused difficulty and concern among a great many Canadians about this intrusion on their liberty by the elimination of their right of free expression. The haste was responsible for that.
Let me make it clear that all Members of the House of Commons have to bear the responsibility for that. We created

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the haste and allowed it to exist. We allowed it to be carried out and did not fight it. We went along with it because we wanted those reforms. Now we have the result. We cannot now get the co-operation of the Government to make changes to rectify the error that may have been made by the House of Commons in passing Bill C-169. We are not able to say that we made a mistake in not realizing that the provision had that effect. Had we realized that, we would not have participated in a unanimous endorsement of Bill C-169. The Government says no, it is sorry, we made a mistake but the provision is there and it will be applied. The Government says, "We will tell the people of Canada that they cannot advertise during an election campaign in the way that it is now alleged to be prohibited by the statutory provision". It says that we made the mistake and the people of Canada will pay for it.
That is what will happen with Bill C-9. If there are any mistakes made by the House of Commons, the people of Canada will pay for them. That is why we must stand here and protest the provisions of the Bill. That is why we must stand up and tell the Government to give us more time because there may be provisions in the Bill that will cause grave concern to the people of Canada.
Remember Revenue Canada. Whoever looked at legislation governing Revenue Canada to find out that it could have secret forces examining the habits of people in Canada in order to determine whether it might affect the manner in which they pay their income tax? Who would have thought that when an institution like Statistics Canada was created, a legitimate institution to compile statistics, that they would be out running around asking people about their income and demanding that they fill out forms that make inquiries ranging from their sex life to their financial demands?


Mr. Forrestall:: Like calling Richardsons to ask for files.


Howard Edward Crosby: Anything in the name of statistics. That is not what the Parliament of Canada intended for Statistics Canada. It was not creating a snoop service to create statistics that nobody needs or finds useful. Yet there are employees of Statistics Canada this very day throughout the country who are knocking on doors and demanding that people fill out forms that those citizens quite sincerely believe this action is an instrusion on their privacy and their right as Canadians citizens to live the way they want without violation of any law. Those government employees are invoking a law against those citizens which was never intended to be invoked and applied in that way.
It is the fault of Members of Parliament for not building a mechanism into the system which would prevent that kind of action. Who ever thought in the House of Commons, when the concept of social insurance numbers was introduced, that they would be used as an intelligence gathering technique? Who ever thought that one's SIN number was going to be used to find our whether one paid one's Visa bill or the Royal Bank of Canada. Who ever thought these things would happen?
Not only should we be on guard for these kinds of changes, we have an absolute duty to be on guard and make sure that any such changes or anything that involves the liberty of the subject in Canada has to be carefully scrutinized or we will end up with Sakharovs and Shcharanskys in Canada, and it will be the Russians asking how we are treating our citizens and why are we snooping around asking where their bank accounts are and how much is in them. I wonder if they do that in the Soviet Union? I wonder if they knock on doors and ask those questions.
We can be ashamed of some of the things going on in Canada because they do not need to take place. We do not need that kind of activity because this is a democratic country. Perhaps there is an element of subversion and threat to our security. We do not deny that. However, it is not necessary to use an elephant gun to kill an ant and that is what the Solicitor General is doing.
Incidentally, what does he know about these situations? He has been harboured away in the middle of the City of Toronto all of his life. What does he know about threats to our society? What information has he received and what information is he relying on?
I have lived in this country. I have served in the administration of justice for a number of years. I never saw any great threats to our society that required the urgent passage of legislation in the Parliament of Canada creating the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. It is not required on an urgent basis so that the rules must be stopped and the process must be stopped in order to get it passed. That is nonsense and the Solicitor General should know that.
If he thinks that the people of Canada agree with him and not with what I am saying he is wrong, because there are very ordinary people in Canada who write very ordinary letters to Members of Parliament to say things such as, "I have just finished reading an article in the paper stating that the Conservative caucus proposes to maintain the RCMP security service as is. I wholeheartedly support this idea". This person happens to be a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. He goes on to give some very cogent reasons for maintaining the RCMP as an intelligence service.
A woman who is in business in my constituency wrote me asking to maintain the RCMP and not to establish a civilian security agency. She knows what government agencies are like and what their track record is. She knows what will happen. She has dealt with Statistics Canada. She runs a business and knows what Revenue Canada is like when it comes to forms, details and records. Are we to believe that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be any different? Are we to believe it will be any better than Revenue Canada or more considerable than Statistics Canada in getting reports? Not on your life.
I'll bet that within six months the Inspector General of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service will have a uniform with more gold braid on it than any admiral ever thought of having. I will bet that it will have everyone institutionalized and militarilized in a matter of months. The Solicitor General
June 21, 1984

had better not laugh. Has he not seen his correctional officers prancing around the country with their gold braided hats. Is not the Canadian Correctional Service a civilian service? What are they doing in uniforms and why are they marching? Its a potential disease. It is called fascism.


J. Michael Forrestall: You know it.


Howard Edward Crosby: The Solicitor General should certainly know what the results of that disease can be if it is not stopped.


J. Michael Forrestall: If you don't, 15 years down the road you will wake up one morning and wonder why it happened.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Howard Edward Crosby: We want to balance rights and we want to balance it in all types of legislation. But we want to do it particularly with legislation that deals with civil rights and the liberty of the subject in Canada.
Let me talk about the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in that situation. The Royal Mounted Police is a national institution that was created in 1873. It has 110 years of history in Canada. What has happened? This is the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police included in the Solicitor General's own report. According to that report, its mandate is to enforce Canadian laws, prevent crime, maintain peace, order and security.
When we examined this report we found with respect to airports that the RCMP ticketed 250,000 cars. That is to say, they issued 250,000 tickets to Canadians at airports. The RCMP has been allowed to degenerate as a police service in Canada. They are not the same as they were in 1873, there is no doubt about that.
This will just be another blow to the RCMP. I do not care what Commissioner Simmonds says about that. He is not on the streets. He is not in Sackville, Nova Scotia, or out in British Columbia. He does not chase after Olson and those kinds of people. He does not know how the ability of the RCMP to perform normal police tasks has been destroyed.
I would like to hear from the Solicitor General on the subject of drugs. They talked about drugs and drug activity. They estimate the value of drugs with which they were involved in 1981 at $8 billion. They say that is the value of the drug market in Canada and that it may be exaggerated. It is in this report. Eight billion dollars is total nonsense. In 1981, that was more than 15 per cent of the total revenues of the Government of Canada, yet they say that is what is out on the streets of Canada. What streets of Canada? I have travelled all over Canada and while there is a serious drug problem which must be attacked, do not tell me that there is $8 billion floating around Canada in the drug market.
It is those kinds of activities in which the RCMP are involved. They are not providing the basic police service that they ought to provide. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service will be taking that much more away from the RCMP and leaving them in parking lots at airports ticketing cars and
Security Intelligence Service
leaving them out on the streets chasing impaired drivers or speeders, when they should be chasing rapists, murderers and people who break and enter private dwellings.
It is not the history or the employees that is hurting the RCMP, it is the direction it is getting from the top. Members of the RCMP who endorse a transferring of security services to a so-called civilian from the RCMP are not contributing to the future welfare and well-being of the RCMP. That force has been in existence for a long time. It does not belong to the officers at the top of that organization. It does not belong to the Solicitor General. It belongs to all Canadians. It is a Canadian force created by Canadians. It is an institution in Canada.
The RCMP is now responsible to the government-to the Solicitor General. He does not have the right to take any act that is going to hurt that force as a Canadian institution, but that is what the Government is doing with Bill C-9. It is taking action that will be harmful to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, a Canadian institution, and harmful to Canadians, mark my words, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: For debate, the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer).


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: I have spoken several times on this important bit of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and I make no apologies for that. I think every Member of this House should be on his or her feet opposing this legislation. I think they should be on their feet as often as is necessary to get this Government to change this very flawed legislation. Certainly I do not think I have seen a more important Bill come before this House of Commons. It directly affects the rights, the privacy, and the freedoms of every individual Canadian in this country. I think the Opposition has an obligation to effect changes in this legislation.
We in the Opposition recognize the need for a security force in Canada, but we are not prepared to approve of or respond to legislation which makes that force or gives it the right seriously to hamper the freedoms of Canadians and seriously intrude on their private lives. Unfortunately, the Government has seen fit to exercise closure on this Bill. It has used the guillotine of time allocation to ensure that the Government gets the Bill through the House before the end of the session. I cannot understand why the Government is doing that, Mr. Speaker. Certainly there does not seem to be any reason for this unseemly haste. I can assure you, Sir, that what this Government does in haste with respect to this legislation, the people of Canada will repent at leisure. As sure as I am standing here, this Bill will lead to great injustice to Canadians over the next few years.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
The Canadian Catholic Conference has called upon the Government to have a sober second look at the legislation. Many organizations, in fact every organization that appeared before the committee asked for changes in the legislation and told the Government to slow down and take a good look at it.
Let us see who made appearances before the committee. Here are just a few: The Canadian Medical Association, the Attorneys General of Canada, the Voice of Women, the Civil Liberties Associations from most provinces, trade unions, from across Canada both large and small, the Association of University Professors, ethnic groups who are really concerned about what this legislation will do to their organizations and the Canadian Council of Churches. There were many, many others, not the least of which was the Canadian Bar Association. All these groups had valid complaints in areas of concern to them.
I think one of the most penetrating comments I have heard in relation to this legislation was that made by Bishop De Roo of Victoria, the President of the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Bishop De Roo wrote a letter to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with a copy sent to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In part, this is what Bishop De Roo wrote:
The content of the Bill worries us considerably. Its adoption without major amendments could very well indicate that Canada is not afraid when it comes to introducing repressive measures aimed at attacking civil and political liberties in order to control social unrest provoked by the application of restraint policies.
Bishop De Roo has got to the heart of one of the problems in this legislation, and certainly this Government cannot claim a good record in that regard. We have only to look at the imposition of the War Measures Act to see how quickly this Government would respond to a farce, and how quickly it would depress civil liberties on some bogey men appearing. That is exactly what this legislation is in great danger of doing.
I am worried, members of my Party are worried and the Canadian people are very worried about this legislation.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Hear, hear!


Vincent Martin Dantzer: The record will show that the changes proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party to this legislation are generally supported by the groups I have mentioned, indeed generally supported by all Canadians. I think the changes in the legislation that we have put forward have been prompted in the main by the response of Canadians to the establishment through this legislation of a security force.
I want to put on the record tonight, although I have mentioned it before, as have other people, the main changes we have requested. I think this Bill will get Canadians into a lot of trouble and we should be able to look back historically and find out where the trouble started.
First, we have proposed three main areas of change. When I say three main areas, I am not including all of the amendments that were put forward, some of them very important, but I do not have the time tonight to go through them all. I would like to go through the ones I consider most important.
First, we propose that the new security force stay within the RCMP. You might well wonder why, Mr. Speaker. I think it is very clear. This is new legislation. It creates a distinctive secret service security force of which Canadians instinctively are suspicious. I say that particular about western Canadians. They are very worried about the establishment of this kind of thing. Frankly, in western Canada we have not had too much good come out of Ottawa. We look with a jaundiced eye on any kind of legislation, and we look at a fearful eye on any establishment of more security forces. Therefore, it is most important to overcome that fear; some of which may be justified, parts of it not. Why not keep the force within the RCMP which is a highly respected and successful force? All over Canada and all over the world the RCMP has earned recognition and respect. Its members are trained to respect the law in Canada. That is why they have had the confidence of the people.
We have had a security force in this country for a long time. And the Attorney General, in response to questions at the committee, admitted that the RCMP had done a very good job, that there are no complaints, that the RCMP has successfully used all the methods necessary and it has developed a highly successful security force.
The question is, if you have a successful operation, why change it? We have pushed very hard to have the Government accept the idea of the security force remaining with the RCMP.
Let me be the first to point out that that was not essential to our position. I am sure we would not have had this long debate if the Government had made some other changes and said that it would keep the force or make a new force. I think we could live with that, reluctantly, but we could live with it. Certainly most of the Attorneys General of Canada support the force being within the RCMP as did the Civil Liberties Association of British Columbia who are not inclined to put the RCMP on a pedestal. That association indicated that if we must have this legislation, it should be left with the RCMP. However, that is not the main issue. The main issue is the definitions contained in Clause 2. I think most Hon. Members have spoken to that particular clause and its horrendous definitions.
We in the Progressive Conservative Party have taken the position throughout this whole matter that if we are to have legislation creating a security force, it is absolutely essential to define the limits of its activities. Without that, a legislative sanction is given to a large group of people without any restraints whatsoever. Clause 2 has been badly drafted and provides no protection at all. In fact, it allows the security force to conduct activities which the Government did not intend.
In the time remaining I should like to point out the dangers. In part, Clause 2 reads:
"threats to the security of Canada" means
June 21, 1984

(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
However, the word "sabotage" is not defined. The dictionary defines that word as wanton destruction of equipment. That kind of thing happens frequently in Canada. I could point to industrial and labour disputes where machinery gets damaged. Surely it is not the intention of the Government to have the secret police investigate industrial and labour disputes, yet that definition allows them to do so. It is just one example of many loose and poor definitions.
The clause continues:
(b)	foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
Let us examine that closely. It could mean that the director of this super-snooper force could begin an intrusive investigation of Japanese automobile dealers in Canada meeting in secret to determine their pricing policy. That is exactly what it could mean, but surely that is not what the Government intended. It has admitted that it did not intend that, yet it is allowing the secret service force to have the ability to participate in wide-ranging activities. Any time any force is given limits to their activities they tend to use them to the limit, and we are lucky if they do not exceed them. I have yet to see this proven otherwise.
If a citizen met discreetly and quietly with Chilean exiles opposed to the Pinochet regime with which Canada has domestic industrial relations, he or she could be in trouble. I could continue listing a number of examples. I think this situation is very dangerous and that it should be looked at carefully. Before this evening is over perhaps the Government will change its mind. If it does not, it should be warned that the people of Canada will not change their minds and they will have their retribution at election time.
I should like to continue referring to Clause 2. I have not reached the worst part as yet. It continues:
(c)	activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against person or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state,-
This means that the security force might investigate, and probably would investigate anyone who attended an Israel bond drive dinner or anyone who supported the PLO organization in Canada or the rebels in Afghanistan. Who knows? They could be under investigation by the force. Surely the Government did not mean to have the activities of such people investigated. Perhaps it did, but I cannot believe that. What possible excuse could the Government have for including such a wide definition?
Now I should like to turn to what is probably the worst definition of all. It should not even be in the Act. It reads:
(d)	activities directed toward undermining by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of, the constitutionally established system of government in Canada,
This goes to the fundamental right of Canadians to protest or dissent. It goes to the heart of the democratic system. It is a
Security Intelligence Service
very delicate subject, I am quite aware of that. However, I should like to read into the record what John Starnes said, as reported in the June 18 edition of the Weekend Observer. I think he dealt with the point very well when he said:
The definition of politically motivated violence has been widened so that those engaging in relatively unimportant acts of political violence can become targets of the service.
The Bill defines subversion as "activities ... directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada." The McDonald Commission proposed the phrase, "the democratic system of government in Canada." A small but important distinction.
Presumably the definition in the Bill means the service, using all the means at its disposal, could investigate activities aimed at the separation of a province.
He went on to say that if the Government intended to resort to this kind of thing, it should make it very well known. That is exactly what this definition allows the service to do. Is it any wonder that the Government of Quebec is so upset by this piece of legislation?


Mr. Berger:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the Hon. Member referring to the amended Bill which contains the word "by violence"? I am not sure whether his quotation made reference to those two words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is not a point of order.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I agree that that is not a point of order. However, I am not referring to the old legislation. I am referring to the new one. I am well aware of the differences.
Be that as it may, this clause will be opposed. There are many separatist organizations out west. They are sincere in what they mean. They are running around rose-bushes and things of that nature. I do not agree with them, but I certainly agree with their right to exist. Just because of their political philosophy, they should not be investigated by a security service. In that regard this is the worst legislation we have ever had in the country. Our citizens certainly do not need political dissent triggering intrusive investigations. That is the one thing we do not need.
The definitions are far too broad. If anything in the Act is bad, it is Clause 2. The entire Bill could be cleaned up in a few areas. The Government could readily do this. I know the Government will say in reply that it has done so, but if we look at the last paragraph in Clause 2, it reads: but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent,-
Then it continues:
-unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to paragraph (d).
In other words, the Government does not want to exclude anything. That is the meanest bit of doubletake in draftsmanship I have ever seen.
I understand that I have a minute remaining. I plead once more with the Government to withdraw the Bill or to accept some changes so that it could at least be more acceptable to Canadians.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a few questions to my colleague. First of all, I sincerely hope that, after the intervention of my colleague from Laurier (Mr. Berger), he did not mean to imply that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would be unable to investigate, should any kind of organization seek to undermine Canada's constitutional regime through violent means. I do hope that is not what he meant, because that would pave the way for anarchists in Canada. I wish he would comment on that first part.
The other thing which has me worried is that it is somewhat difficult to find out just where the Progressive Conservative Party stands with respect to the creation of a civilian intelligence agency. The House knows the position of the Canadian Government: in light of the Mackenzie, McDonald and Pit-field reports, it proposes the creation of a civilian security intelligence service independent from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Then we have the New Democratic Party which is openly against the RCMP and its alleged activities and which, in the same breath, wants the RCMP to continue to work in the field of intelligence security. And then, the Progressive Conservative Party, which brings me to this question: can anyone tell us in clear, unequivocal and specific terms just what the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is?
In committee, it sounded as if they were against the creation of a civilian security intelligence agency, and yet four Progressive Conservative senators sat on the Pitfield committee and only one was against the creation of a civilian security intelligence agency.
What I would like to know is, what is the exact position of the Progressive Conservative Party, and what is the position of the Members of the Progressive Conservative caucus? Does their position differ from that of the caucus of senators, if indeed there is such a thing? And how can we reconcile the position expressed by the Progressive Conservative Party critic of the Solicitor General with the statements made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who tends to favour the creation of a civilian security intelligence agency?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I of course cannot speak for the Senate, the other place. I can say that the position that our Party has put forward has been consistent and clear. First, we recognize that there is a need for a service of the kind proposed in this Bill. We say ideally that service should be located as it is now, within the ranks of the RCMP. I think that answers the question. Is that what the Hon. Member wanted clarified?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I will preface my question with a comment. I find it rather interesting that there is not a single member of the Liberal Party who is prepared to stand and defend this Bill other than the Minister and his
Parliamentary Secretary. I find that a most revealing indication of the nature of the real support and commitment to that legislation, the fact that during the entire period-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I allowed the first phrase, but I am afraid the Hon. Member cannot continue. He must direct his remarks to the speech made by the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member for Okanagan North (Mr. Dantzer). Having sat with him in committee, I know that his personal views are very strongly in opposition to this legislation. Perhaps the Hon. Member might enlighten the House and, through the House, Canadians. I know that the Hon. Member has very strong views, but if his Party feels so strongly about this legislation, why did it not make any effort whatsoever to join with me as the representative of my Party in committee in attempting to block passage of this Bill? It was obvious that the Government was not prepared to accept any serious amendments. His Party was, unfortunately, silent on the predecessor Bill C-157. I wonder if the Hon. Member could enlighten the House as to why it was that at that crucial time, when perhaps the Conservative Party could have joined with the New Democratic Party in really going all out to block this attack on civil liberties, they stood by.


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, I am quite aware that one's perceptions of events are coloured by the position in which one is standing. The Hon. Member who asked the question sees a far different role for my Party than I see. We have opposed this legislation at every opportunity, including the long, long hours in committee. In this House we had speaker after speaking opposing this legislation. In fact, we put up more speakers than the NDP. We will continue to oppose it.
I fail to see how the Hon. Member can take the position he has unless it is purely for political capital. I would think that his interest in opposing this Bill is such that he would not attempt to make political capital out of it. This Bill is too important for that sort of thing. The Conservative Party recognizes that and opposes it most strenuously.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, certainly the record of that Party in committee will speak for itself. I take it from what the Hon. Member for Okanagan North is saying that, given the fact that the Conservative Party in the Senate has the ability to prevent this legislation, which we know is not amended as the Government refused to accept any amendments of substance, and there is only one week left on the parliamentary timetable before we rise on June 29, his Party will in fact match its tough rhetoric in this place. Is he prepared to indicate that Conservative Senators will take the action that they must take in order to block this Bill from proceeding? It is now up to them.
The only way that this attack on civil liberties of Canadians can be stopped is if Conservative Senators in the other place wake up to their responsibilities and block the Bill. Unless they co-operate with the Government in the Senate, that is exactly
June 21, 1984

what they can do. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Okanagan North can indicate whether his Party is going to stick to its principles and to its guns and do what it can in the Senate to block this Bill, or is it going to let it slide through in the Senate?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, my response must be the same as it was to the Hon. Member on the Government side. I do not speak for the other place. I know that in this House our Party has demonstrated its opposition to this Bill and we will continue to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada for one more very short question.


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) said earlier that there had not been any major change. Is the Hon. Member who has just spoken willing to admit that Bill C-9 represents a greatly improved Bill C-157, considering that something like 40 amendments were tabled in January, 1984, that even before the Committee began its clause by clause discussion, seven amendments had been tabled by the Minister, and that further amendments were moved afterwards even though these amendments certainly might not be as important? Is the Hon. Member willing to admit that we now have before us a greatly improved Bill C-157 and that a great majority of witnesses have said so?


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Mr. Speaker, of course I am prepared to admit that Bill C-9 is better than the first one the Minister brought forward, which was an insult to the intelligence of Canadians. The Minister continues to point to that fact and I admit that. I also admit that there are a few minor improvements to the Bill from when it was first presented; but no substantial amendments were made to this Bill in the House of Commons committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has expired.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, as we debate the last stage of Bill C-9 I cannot escape the sense of sadness and melancholy that I feel. After sitting and voting until five o'clock this morning, I think the nerves of all of us are frayed and we feel physically and emotionally exhausted. I believe that is true for all Members of the House.
Despite all of the efforts displayed by the combined Opposition, the Government has refused to budge. We have used almost every instrument that is available to an Opposition to impress upon the Government our fears and uncertainties about the security legislation. The Government has refused to consider seriously any and all of our representations.
Security Intelligence Service
Members of the two opposition Parties do not oppose this legislation because we wish to score some political points or play some political games. We have a very genuine fear that the secret service agency to be established by this Bill will pose serious threats to the civil liberties of Canadians and hamper genuine and legitimate dissent. We are not alone in our fears. Church groups, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and all of the provincial Attorneys General share our fears. Yet the Government continues to ignore these very real fears. It abuses it majority by blocking amendments, by imposing closure and by ramming this Bill through the House.
I am still genuinely puzzled why the Government insists it needs such wide powers over the lives of individual Canadians. Government Members, and particularly the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), have not proven that a state of anarchy or insurrection exists in Canada. They have not shown that a threat exists with which the Government does not already have the means to deal. Why when does it need a secret police service with more powers than any other police force that exists in any democratic country? Are there greater threats being made by terrorists or subversives in Canada than in the United States, Italy, Germany or Great Britain? Certainly the Government has not even attempted to prove that this is so. Why then is the Government so insistent on getting this legislation through the House without any amendments?
Some Liberal Members have stated that Bill C-9 is what the McDonald Commission recommended. However, that is entirely false. Government Members have claimed that this Bill will rectify the injustices and illegal acts that were committed during the Quebec crisis. Sadly, I find this argument to be an example of Orwellian doublespeak. It was this Liberal Government that imposed the War Measures Act and that determined the manner in which it would deal with the FLQ threat. History has now shown that the Liberal Government overreacted. To absolve themselves of their collective guilt, Liberal Members have attempted to make the RCMP the scapegoat, and they have used the McDonald Commission report as an excuse to make legal all of the illegal acts that occurred. It is cynical, it is Orwellian, and it is repugnant to reasonable men and women.
I am still at a very genuine loss to understand why the Government wants this legislation so badly now. Perhaps some time in the future we will discover the real reason why this is so. We cannot accept the half-baked arguments that government Members have proposed as justification for this legislation. There is another reason for this, which we do not know. Another reason exists in the background of which Canadians are not aware. Hopefully, at some point in history, the complete truth will be known why the Government wanted this legislation so desperately at this time.
Why have we been so adamant in our opposition to this Bill? First, as many Members on this side of the House have indicated, and as others who have brought forward briefs and presentations have also indicated, the definitions in the Bill are much too loose. For example, the definition of what constitutes

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
a threat to the security of Canada is so loosely worded that all sorts of very legitimate political organizations and activities can be considered a threat to Canadian security. On the domestic front it could mean that unemployed workers who are involved in demonstrations, farmers who are going into bankruptcy and using tractors in demonstrations, and peace groups and activists involved in peace marches and in collecting petitions, could all be defined as a threat to the security of Canada.
We are not saying that those groups will be defined in such a way, but we are saying that there are enough holes in this proposed legislation that one individual person obsessed with his notion of the nature of Canadian society could decide that these farm groups, work groups, and peace groups constitute a threat to Canadian society. As such, the people involved in those organizations can have their telephones tapped, their medical records and taxation records looked into, their homes broken into at any time of the night, and they can essentially lose their basic civil liberties as Canadian citizens.
The second reason why we are so afraid of this piece of legislation is the nature of the powers it gives to this agency. The powers are much too wide. They are frightening. They are repugnant to Canadian traditions and to the Canadian way of life. For the Government even to dare to enter Parliament with a type of legislation that gives these powers to a group of men and women should be an unthinkable act. Yet this Government has, in the dying days of this Parliament, done just that.
The third area with which we are concerned is the area of accountability. If we need a secret service agency with wide powers, then at least we must do everything possible to make certain that that agency has some accountability. If we are at all concerned that this agency does not get away with itself, then we must put in place a method of checks and balances so that this agency can be accountable and so that the men and women who are in charge of this agency are accountable to people outside the agency. The accountability provided for by this legislation is much too weak, and in fact, hardly exists at all.
Government Members will, of course, say that this agency cannot get away with itself. We cannot accept that argument. There are too many examples of bureaucracies under this Liberal regime running away with themselves. The most recent and glaring example of this is, of course, the recent controversy surrounding Revenue Canada. It is a Department which has no real policing powers or policing mandate, yet it created an entire internal police network that rode roughshod over individual civil liberties of the Canadian people.
We are very much afraid that this security agency can run away with itself in the same fashion. We are very much concerned that a secret police bureaucracy can be created that will no longer be held accountable to its political masters. The history of the Liberal Government in this country should be a fair warning to all of us that this indeed can happen.
Administratively the Liberals have shown themselves to be quite incompetent. They cannot even hold their own bureaucracy in check. How well can the present Solicitor General, with his great brilliance, be able to hold in check the monster he is creating? I have a personal admiration and respect for the Solicitor General as a human being, but I have no confidence in the Solicitor General having the smarts to be able to control the secret service agency which he is creating. In fact I would suggest that he is the very opposite-relatively incompetent on that matter.
We have challenged the Government to hold an election on this issue. We have told the Government that if this is such an important item it should come out of the closet, go public and tell the Canadian people exactly why we need this agency and why these policing powers are necessary. What threats exist to the security and well-being of the people of Canada? Of course government Members react to that suggestion by laughing at us.
Going through the process of the debate on this legislation at second reading, and now third reading, the one area which I find particularly saddening is the lack of media attention and concern about this Bill. Surely it is the duty of the media to inform Canadians on all matters which directly affect them. Surely the legislation with which we are dealing today has tremendous impact on the fundamental freedoms of Canadians.
The debate on this Bill should have been front-page news. All of the arguments should have been reported, pro and con. Had we had more attentive media and had the media insisted that the debate on this Bill be a high item on the social agenda that Canadians would read and talk about, the Government would have accepted more amendments. Had the media played their role, the Government would never have been allowed to get away with introducing closure. In fact, had there been an attentive media, more Liberal Members of Parliament would have stood to justify the legislation. Unfortunately, the media have not played their true and important role in this matter.
In a very few days this Bill will receive Royal Assent and it will be law. We can only hope and pray that the men and women who will have unprecedented powers over their fellow Canadians will use those powers judiciously and wisely. I hope that they will not cynically dismiss the fears and concerns of the churches, the provincial Attorneys General, and the civil liberties unions, as just the outpouring of a bunch of touchies and feelies. I hope these men and women will not ignore what members of the Opposition in the House of Commons have been saying. After all, we are the representatives of the people. I fervently hope that these men and women do not become consumed by their own visions of what Canadian society should be, and that will not be allowed to harass and intrude into the private lives of Canadians whose visions are different from theirs.
We face a very uncertain future. It is a future of tremendous technological changes. Many of these technological changes will endanger the private rights and security of Canadians.
June 21, 1984

The computerization of medical and legal files, electronic banking, border transfer of data, and some of the most sophisticated electronic devices to listen to conversations, are readily available on the market today. All these new devices and all these new social institutions will restrict individual privacy. We expected legislation which would protect individual Canadians rather than legislation which will help to facilitate the invasion of the privacy of individual Canadians.
As Canadian society moves into the future, it will encounter different social and economic changes and upheavals. Some individuals will be displaced. Today we see hundreds and thousands of men and women who are not able to find work. In today's Globe and Mail there was an article about the slave trade in Calgary. Men gather in a block area, and people drive by in trucks and vans to pick up unemployed men and hire them as labourers for a day. Those men do not have any protection in terms of working conditions or minimum wage standards.
Every day in the City of Vancouver there are four or five block-long line-ups of young Canadian men and women who are waiting to get a sandwich because that is- their only source of food. Indeed, these are difficult times for many Canadians. These are times in which it is inevitable that some will get angry at the conditions in which they have to live their lives. For these people to have a secret service agency on top of that, will drive some of them underground. I predict that the existence of a secret service agency will create the opposite effect than what was intended by this Bill. It will create more subversives. It is like a mirror image-the one creates the other. When Canadians fear that they can no longer advocate the changing of the conditions in which they and their fellow citizens must live, and that they are afraid that a secret service agency will spy on them because they are advocating some change in the power and in the economic structure of this country, then they will feel that they must go underground. The one does create the other.
As we move into a very insecure future, this piece of legislation will not help us to find a new and just future for Canadian men and women. It will have the opposite effect. It is a sad day for this Parliament. This great democratic institution will pass into law a Bill which limits and restricts democracy. Democracy is the most fragile of flowers. The experience of men and women in the history of our democratic race is a very recent experience. It is a very fragile flower indeed, which is being attacked by changing conditions as we move into the future. I am afraid that what the Government has proposed and what it is asking us to pass in this session is a Bill which will help destroy that flower. In the name of attempting to protect it, the very mechanism which it is creating to protect democracy becomes a threat to democracy. The Government has been unwilling to listen to us and to take seriously our fears and representations. It has been adamant in pushing this Bill through the House. I must return to the question-Why?
Security Intelligence Service


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions or comments.


Gaston Gourde: Questions or comments, Mr. Speaker. Earlier, the Hon. Member referred to the fact that he had challenged us to call an election on the basis of Bill C-9, to establish a Canadian Security Intelligence Agency. I have now been sitting in this place for a little over three years. If we had acted on the recommendations of the New Democratic Party, we would have had, if I am not mistaken, at least three general elections. I came here during the debate on the constitutional review when we were challenged to call a general election. Last year, I followed very closely the Crow rates review process. Once more, we were challenged to call a general election. We are now debating the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and, once more, we are challenged to call a general election.
Well, I will reply to the Hon. Members that we shall certainly be calling a general election within the next few weeks and I challenge them to have a fraction of the results that the Liberal Party will get since it will form the next Government.


Mr. Laniel:: I think that half of them will no longer be here!


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, after my trip to Regina and Vancouver in Western Canada last year, I was able to see how isolated the NDP Members are in their ivory towers and how far they are from the people, because last year, mayors in the Vancouver area criticized them for having made a great many more representations on behalf of some of their own Members than on behalf of the people in their constituencies. At that time, the Hon. Member for Burnaby-


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order-


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is grossly misrepresenting the facts. In fact the "mayors" in question were one Liberal mayor who suggested that a local New Democratic Party Member of Parliament was not sticking to liberal line but instead was defending the interests of his constituents. We make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, for standing up for the people we represent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That, of course, is not a point of order. It is a point of debate.

I also suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary he should put questions to the Member who spoke.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Gaston Gourde: Mr. Speaker, I thought this was a period of comments and questions. This is why I had a few comments.


John Carnell Crosbie: What is the question?


Gaston Gourde: I very well remember the mayor who was there. He represented a community of mayors, somewhat like municipal regions we have in our Quebec constituencies.
I would like to know, from the Hon. Member who spoke of the problems that might stem from the establishment of a new Security Information agency, whether he is fully aware of the review and control process in the Canadian Security Intelligence Agency. Did he inform the people correctly, referring to the review by the judicial process, by the Minister, by the Inspector General, by the Review Committee, whose Members are appointed in consultation with the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of any party holding at least 12 seats in this House? Did the Hon. Member have the decency to tell the people in his constituency and Canada what impact is at stake in the legislation?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I have informed my constituents that the Government is afraid to have this agency reviewed by their representatives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Are there any other Members wishing to put questions or make comments?
Continuing debate.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak on this particular piece of legislation. I am glad I am going to have the opportunity tonight before the Government carries this to a vote and uses its majority to pass it through the House. By the way, Mr. Speaker, I was away last night on a mission. I was attempting to overthrow the Government. I have been engaged in many missions in recent days attempting to overthrow the Government. I consider it to be a patriotic duty of anyone in this country who has a grain of common sense, to attempt to overthrow this Government. I am constantly at it. That is why I am not in sympathy with the purpose of the Bill, to tell you the truth. I feel that anyone who attempts to overthrow this Government is doing a public service.
I just mention that I was away last night, Mr. Speaker, because I missed the performance which went on here last night when this institution sat through hour after hour of voting on amendments until 5 a.m. in the morning, as I understand it.


Mr. Lambert:: Senseless.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not only senseless but useless, and a shame to the institution. If we cannot find a better way, Mr. Speaker, to operate this House, or a better way to record votes in this House, then the House may as well pass on, because anyone in Canada who pays any attention to it will lose any respect they have for it. As a matter of fact, as one can observe from the
Question Period, Mr. Speaker, and how it has degenerated in the last couple of months, the institution is just about on its last legs, in any event. You can no longer expect an answer from the Ministers on any subject of any sense whatsoever. In the economic area, of course, it is worse than in any other. That is epitomized in the kind of answers to questions which we heard here this afternoon.
This country is staggering toward another recession, Mr. Speaker, with interest rates about to go up, the bank rate up, the Canadian dollar, with no underpinning to it at all, in a tremendously vulnerable state, and one asks a question of the Minister, who is almost like a automaton in the response he gives-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It has been drawn to the attention of the Chair that the subject for debate is Bill C-9.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what I am addressing now is the intelligence of members of the Government. This is a Bill called "The Canadian Security Intelligence Service", and I am pointing out there is no one on the government side who has any intelligence, much less any security. So I feel, Mr. Speaker, I am quite relevant. But I will, of course, be guided by your wisdom. You have been a Member of this House far longer than you deserve to be, and you have a lot of experience and I will, naturally, be guided-


Mr. Lumley:: Have some respect for the Chair.


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, Mr. Speaker, I will move on to another subject. I have not had the chance to speak to this Bill before. I do not pretend to have any expertise.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It shows.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think I heard a mumble from the Hon. Member from bird's nest, Winnipeg-bird's nest, who sits there behind his beard, Mr. Speaker. He has a lot of security. He has a security blanket plastered all over his face. He has the audacity to interrupt me when I am trying to speak on this subject for the first time in this House.
One of the regrets of being a Member of the House of Commons is that you do not have the time, Mr. Speaker, to get involved in all of the areas in which you would like to be involved. This is an area in which I would like to have some expertise but have not because I am busy in other areas and, therefore, have not been able to follow it with the close attention I otherwise would have devoted to it. However, I hope I have a few observations to make that will not be too repetitious.
I was listening to the previous speaker, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), who made an eloquent speech here tonight, and I heard him bewailing the fact that this legislation had been presented to the House and that the Liberal Government was using its majority to impose closure and push this through the House. I thought to myself what poetic justice this is. There are two ways of voting for a
June 21, 1984

Liberal Government, as you know, Mr. Speaker. One way is you vote for the Liberal candidate, and the other way is you vote for the NDP candidate. A vote for the NDP is a vote to have a Liberal Government in Canada, as we saw in December-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, first of all there are certain questions about the relevance of this misstatement of fact with respect to the Bill before the House. More important, Mr. Speaker, I believe the people of Canada know that it is the Tories who vote twice as often with the Liberals than the NDP do. So the record should be put straight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That, of course, is not a point of order. It is a point of debate. However, the Hon. Member for St. John's West may try to get back to Bill C-9.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is that the New Democratic Party is responsible for this Bill. Those Hon. Members made it possible for the Liberals to form a Government in Canada and they have to bear equal responsibility with the Government for the legislation which comes before this House. The NDP are here in a hypocritical pose, bewailing the fact that their partners whom they put in power have brought in this legislation that they do not like. If these gentlemen stop interrupting me I will get from point to point and you will follow my reasoning and you will be fascinated with the tenuous connections that follow between all the points.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We already are.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I have no great knowledge about this Bill. It is enough for me to know that the present Solicitor General introduced it to make me shudder at the effect it might have if it goes through the House. One thing that particularly annoys me is that the Government will not agree to a parliamentary oversight committee. We are to have a review committee which, as I understand it, is to be composed of persons who have been Privy Councillors. That was bad enough. We have had some persons sworn into the Privy Council of Canada who I would not want reviewing anything. Once we successfully got them out of power, I certainly would not want them back reviewing anything else. The fact that you have been a Privy Councillor does not mean that you are going to be attentive to your duties or that you have the capacity or interest to properly oversee the security service, or look at the rights of the public and make sure that abuses do not occur.
It is bad enough that this House will not have a parliamentary oversight committee, I am further advised that the Government has stated that if it wishes to appoint someone to the review committee who is not a Privy Councillor, it will simply
Security Intelligence Service
swear him into the Privy Council and then appoint him to this review committee. If anyone thought there was some particular value to having been a Cabinet Minister and sworn into the Privy Council, that is all gone. It was a thin hope in any event, but the fact that someone could just be taken off the street-


Howard Edward Crosby: Michael Pitfield.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, he is one possibility. Or Trotters McCarthy. It could be Tommy Toe. It could be anyone brought in off the street, sworn into the Privy Council and appointed to the review committee. That is not my idea of assurance to the people of Canada that they are going to have an oversight committee with the courage, independence and resourcefulness to see that this really works.
Just compare us with the United States of America. Compare the miserable state this House of Commons is in, this legislative body, with the United States. It has been emasculated and Members are without power. The only people in this House who have any power at all are Members of the Cabinet. Today they do not have any power; they are all sitting around stewing and wondering if Pierre Elliott Turner is going to take them into his Cabinet or not. They have had their safe berth with the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is very lackadaisical about performance. He does not care whether they perform or do not perform.
But now there is a new Liberal Leader so even the present Cabinet Ministers do not have power at the moment, except for the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). He slithered across the convention floor on Saturday to make sure- now, I am addressing the Bill, Mr. Speaker, because I am talking about security. The Deputy Prime Minister wanted some security last Saturday and he saw his security blanket sitting in the Turner box and he slithered over, as I said the other day, just like a worried crab that spots a dead herring in the moonlight. He went right for the old rotten herring. Once again he illustrated the fact that he is the most security conscious Member of the Government.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) was not far behind, of course. He could hardly wait for the first ballot to be counted before he made his break for security. He showed his intelligence. There were several other Members not so security conscious. They are more intelligent. They went with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien). God knows where they are going to end up. They may end up as members of this review committee or some other big job like that.
In any event, here we have a situation which epitomizes the low estate of the Canadian House of Commons, the legislature in Canada, if we compare it with the U.S. Their parliamentary system has survived to the present day with the legislators having some real power. When President Reagan and the executive branch wish to encourage an invasion of Nicaragua or finance some irregular troops or former Nicaraguans, or whoever they might be, to invade and interfere with the internal security of Nicaragua, they have an oversight committee in the U.S. Congress which has some powers. It is com-

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
posed of Members of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Senator from New York, the big Irishman-


Mr. Darling:: Patrick Moynihan.


John Carnell Crosbie: -Senator Moynihan, just by his threat to leave the vice-chairmanship of that committee, was able to bring about a change of policy in the U.S. and have the Government state that it was no longer going to use subversive techniques to try and overthrow the Government of Nicaragua. That is something meaningful. The members of that legislative body have some meaningful power and influence. That is what we should have in this legislation. This should apply not only with respect to the security intelligence review committee, it should happen with all committees.
Why does the Government not want help in controlling the bureaucracy? It is not just that we need to control the security intelligence service. We have to have special techniques for that because a lot of their work must be secret. But the Government generally needs assistance in controlling the bureaucracy as a whole. Why not use the 282 Members we have elected to this House for that purpose? Why should the Government carry on, satisfied, with the Members of the Opposition having no real authority or power? Yes, when Question Period comes along we can question the Government and show our anger, dismay and all the rest of it. But that is not real power.
The back-benchers on the Government side have no real power either. Some of them are fairly decent people. I often say that I know many Liberals, and some of them are very good friends of mine, but would you have one married to your sister? No, not if you could avoid it. Nevertheless, there are some very good people in the Government backbenches who should be utilized.


Mr. Bloomfield:: What about your brother?


John Carnell Crosbie: I know I will always be looked after by the Government opposite. They put me brother in charge of Fisheries Products International Limited. I know if he needs an executive assistant, they will fire me in there too. I hope I never have to do that, however.
The point I am trying to make is a serious one. There are many good Members on the Government side and on this side who would be more than happy and delighted to serve on committees such as this, and who have the talent and the ability. They would make the time to do it. Those are the people who should be doing it, the people who represent the public. The public knows, for example, that the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), if they approach him on a security intelligence problem or something like that, will be interested. He has been in public life for many years and is identifiable as a public figure. He is still active. If there was some irregularity, he would be bound to see that it was followed up. If he was a member of this review committee, he would get to the bottom of it. If he could not get satisfaction behind the scenes, he would get it publicly by simply asking
questions in the House, or wherever it might be. That is the kind of person we need on the review committee.
I am not quite sure how many members it is supposed to have. But supposing there are five, then of course three should be from the Qpposition and two from the Government. There should always be a majority from the Opposition who are not going to be embarrassed if the Government has to be embarrassed to rectify some injustice which has occurred.
That is one of the reasons I am very happy to support the position of our Party with respect to this Bill. There is a major defect in the review of these operations alone. We all know we have to have a security service, but why does the Government not know that in addition to a security service we need to be in a position to defend ourselves effectively? It makes one a bit sick to see the pressure put on to put this Bill through the House when we know the Government does not care about the defence effectiveness of Canada whatsoever. It has ignored our NATO obligations and responsibilities for donkey's years, for 16 years at least, since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who told me today that he is going, took office. That is the first time I really believed he was going. I asked him this afternoon and he said that yes, he was going to resign. He confirmed it. I do not think that he would disappoint me by saying one thing in the House and doing something different. For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I really got the impression that the Prime Minister is going to go. More is the pity that he did not wait till we had defeated him before he went. Nevertheless, we wish him well in his retirement. He would be a dandy to have on this committee, by the way.


An Hon. Member:: You were taking too long. He could not wait any more. He gave up on you guys.


John Carnell Crosbie: He gave up on us having the chance to defeat him. We wish him well anyway. Pass that on to him, please; you never know when you might need his goodwill. He might not mean what he said today.
The Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) mentioned a more attentive media. One thing we cannot count on is for the media to be the protector of the civil liberties and rights of the Canadian citizen in this day and age. The media are the froth and the foam on the river of life. That is all they are. They are only skin deep. They are only on the surface. The media no longer dig deeply into anything. They are just prepared to get their bons mots or their 30-second quote. Then they run off to the newsroom and get it on the air and go and have a beer at the press club. If we are going to depend on the media to defend us against the transgressions of the security service, God help us! We will be in pretty slack shape. They are just a liver spot on the escutcheon of mankind. We cannot depend on the media to defend us.
The kind of people we could depend on are cantankerous Members of this House, Members who are crusty, independent, saucy, impatient, fed up, nasty and obnoxious. You would

June 21, 1984

not want to bump into them in the dark. That is the type of person that we need.


Edward C. Lumley: That sounds like the Tory caucus!


John Carnell Crosbie: Have I described anybody over there?


Edward C. Lumley: You have been in the Tory caucus too long, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: These are the kinds of persons we want on an effective committee to protect us.
How many more points have I, Mr. Speaker?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You have not made any so far.


John Carnell Crosbie: Winnipeg-Birds Nest pipes up. Is there a birdbrain to match that bird's nest I wonder?
In my final couple of minutes I will say that the Government has not made any pretence of making a real effort even to put Canada in a position where we can defend our own shores or control our own coastal waters. That is one of the things that really offends me. I am from an island, Mr. Speaker, the island of Newfoundland. If we need to be defended we need a navy and an air force. As I have said here before, the people in Newfoundland cannot sleep at night because they do not know the day or the moment that St. Pierre et Miquelon is going to invade. Who can prevent St. Pierre et Miquelon from invading Newfoundland? We may wake up one day French. In a way that would solve my problem, Mr. Speaker. I would be a French citizen. Nobody could say that I was not. I might even learn the language more rapidly than I am now.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it well behooves a government that is not prepared to devote sufficient resources to provide adequate defence forces to control and patrol our own territory to ask us to pass a Bill with the imperfections of this one and to rush it through in the last moments of this Parliament.
The NDP Member for Regina East suggested that an election be held. There are many reasons for having an election today, Mr. Speaker. This is a Government that has not governed this country-and I am going to be generous about it-certainly since January.
I have to wind up my remarks. I am delighted, Mr. Speaker, that I had a chance to give you some of my views on security and intelligence. I vote against this Bill confident in the fact that I am right in doing so for some of the reasons that I have outlined tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a 10-minute period for questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the honourable and distinguished Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) a question. I note that he talked of subversion. He was recently on a subversive mission to my constituency
Security Intelligence Service
attempting to undermine the foundations of democracy in my constituency in support of one of his political cronies.
The Member for St. John's West has waxed eloquent about the fact that he does not believe that the Conservative Party should be assisting the Government in any way in rushing this Bill through the House. I am very pleased that at the last minute of the debates in this House the Tory Party has finally joined with us in opposing the Bill.
I would like to ask the Member for St. John's West a specific question. There is an opportunity for the Conservative Party to make its apparent opposition to this dangerous legislation a reality. That opportunity will come next week when the Hon. Member's colleagues in the Senate are asked to co-operate and play a little game of footsy with the Government to rush this Bill through in a week. If the Party of the Member for St. John's West is serious about stopping this legislation which is such a threat to civil liberties, are the Conservative Senators going to play footsy with their Liberal colleagues and ram this Bill through? Or are they going to stick to their principles, such as they are, and do what they can to prevent this Bill from passing the Senate next week?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Member for Burnaby asked that question. By the way, I was to the hon. gentleman's district last week. We had to turn away thousands.


Svend Johannes Robinson: They did not want to come; that is why you turned them away.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Did you say thousands were turning away?


John Carnell Crosbie: Everywhere I went there they asked with some mystification where their MP was. I said: "I do not know where he was but I know where he is not; he is not here today and I have come in his place to deliver a message". The message, Mr. Speaker, you may imagine, is not one which would warm the cockles of the heart of the Member for Burnaby. While I was there I met the new Member for Burnaby after the next election. The hon. gentleman will be languishing before the next election is over.
On your question, the way it is with Conservative Senators is this. There are not too many of them. They are very infrequent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are old.


John Carnell Crosbie: Some of them are well up in years. They are independent thinkers. They are civil libertarians and we cannot taken any liberties with them. We cannot impose any rigid discipline on them. They were appointed to the Senate to speak and think for themselves. They were not appointed as Liberals to do what they are told. A Liberal is never appointed to speak and think for himself. He is appointed to speak and think as his Whip tells him. You can see that here in the House, Mr. Speaker. When the Whip is here you can see him sending communications by way of "photovaletic" brain cells to the Liberals here when they speak and vote in the House. We do

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
not have the same arrangement with our Senators so I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what they are going to do. They are not going to force a vote in the Senate until 5 a.m. It would clean the place out. There would not be one survivor. They are not going to commit mass murder by forcing votes on 175 amendments. But you can be sure that they will strike a vote for liberty when this Bill goes before the Senate.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, as always, the Elon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is extremely entertaining. This must be one of the best and most fun-filled shows in the country when he speaks.
I wish to ask him a question about the operations of the CIA in the United States, since he was referring to its operations in Nicaragua and other countries. Did he mean by his references that he was happy with the operations of the CIA? Further, does he know what the mandate of the CIA is and how it compares to the mandate of the security service that we are considering this evening?
It is my understanding that the mandate of the CIA is established by each incoming President, often by secret directive. For example, President Carter, wanting to limit the mandate of the CIA to a certain extent, passed a directive stating that the CIA should not engage in political assassinations in carrying out its mandate. Is he happy with the controls on the CIA? How does he compare them to the controls that we have established here for the Canadian Intelligence Security Service?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, by no means am I an expert on the CIA. Of course I read the popular magazines and try to keep up on events.
The only political assassination that I have seen in recent years was the political assassination that occurred last Saturday when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) was assassinated politically by his colleagues in the Liberal Party who loved him so much and felt that his honesty and emotions were the greatest of any member of the Party. They felt that he had all of the virtues that a good Liberal could possibly have, and then turned around and assassinated him, led by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who sunk the dirk in most decisively at the dirty last moment that he could do it, by walking across to the box of the incoming Prime Minister. All I know about political assassinations is what I saw last Saturday. I happened to be down at the very scene of the crime.
With respect to the CIA, I do not know what their instructions are. I just know that the CIA is a body that needs to be carefully watched. I know that the Congress of the United States of America has two committees of members of that Congress who oversee the CIA. I know that, even so, members of those committees are very loath to embarrass the CIA or the Government publicly, and are very careful not to do so.
However, if the committees that were overseeing the CIA were all appointed by the executive and not by members of the
legislative branch of their governmental structure there, there would be no checks and balances on the CIA at all. That is why I made the comparison because I do not consider the committee that will be set up and appointed by the Government of Canada, the executive branch of which is the Cabinet, and not by a committee of the House, to be any check or balance on the security service whatsoever. It could quickly get out of hand again, just as it got out of hand in the early 1970s.
It was the Member for Regina East (Mr. Ogle) who mentioned that we can see in this country how easily we can panic, and how easily people panicked when the Pierre Laporte murder took place in Quebec a few years ago.
I have only had 20 minutes to speak. If the House would grant me some more time I would advance further arguments why I do not favour the Bill. However, that is my reference to the CIA. I happen to think that the CIA has too much power as well, but at least in the United States they have some checks and balances through committees of the Congress.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If there are no further questions or comments, continuing debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had some rather testy remarks to address to the House about the charade it went through with regard to voting clause by clause on the amendments. Never in my life have I seen such a base demonstration of an abuse of the rules by people who should have known better and who had lost total contact with one another.
There was a way to conduct that vote. It seems to me that having had to do much the same thing on legislation that was as complex as this and on which many amendments were put, three negotiators on behalf of the respective parties in the House were soon able to sift the wheat from the chaff and insist that there should be recorded votes on only those points of importance.
Frankly, last night we were being asked to vote on a lot of drivel, although relative drivel as far as the importance of the particular clauses were concerned.
Having said that, I can only say that, on reflection, I was amazed at the moderation of my words. The point is that many Members on both sides of the House have commended me for those remarks.
This is likely my last opportunity to address the House because I am going on a five-day mission to the Atlantic Provinces to receive parliamentarians from one of our European friends. I am to return next Thursday, when there may not be an opportunity to address the House. We will then be adjourning.
It is quite conceivable that we might resume on September 12. I see Hon. Members shaking their heads. I want to point out to them that their idea of getting attractive candidates quickly in western Canada is just a myth in the minds of those in central Canada. No matter what the importance may be of an individual or the fact that he may have been given a high profile in the newspapers, it will not be possible for that person
June 21, 1984

to give an immediate yes or no answer to a Liberal candidacy in western Canada. Therefore, I may have an opportunity in September to address the House.
However, I pray for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to avail myself as others have who are retiring from the House of Commons, to say thank you to my colleagues and express appreciation for being able to work with many of them. At times I have been known to be a little testy-


John Leslie Evans: Never!


Edward C. Lumley: Don't get soft now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -with a short fuse. But may I say that while I violently disagree with ideas as expressed at times, over the 27 years there are very few people who have come to the House of Commons about whom I could say I disliked them personally. Some I liked a great deal more than others. We all have those preferences. We have some contacts.
It has been my lot to be on this side of the House for 20 years. While we sometimes say harsh things about the actions or inactions of Ministers, we knew them when they were like ourselves, part of the foot soldiery of the House, fighting in the trenches of the committees, and we got to know them rather well. They were decent chaps.
I do not like to be patronizing and say the same thing about the lady Members who have been with us all through those years. To say they were "decent chaps" I do not think is accepted in that sense! It was an honour to serve with them and we enjoyed their influence in the House. My only regret is that we did not have many more. I am not going to pick anyone out except one, the former High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, who is now part of the Macdonald Commission. When she was here, her presence graced the House.
My colleague opposite me, the Hon. Member for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), came here in 1962. I recall many people who came here as freshmen in 1962 who were bright, perky young Members on the back row on this side as I sat in the Chair where you are now, Mr. Speaker, and I recognized that they were a pretty hardy breed.


Gérald Laniel: And much younger!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, much younger then. Twenty-two years have passed and it is remarkable how much 22 can add to a man's life when he starts out in his late 30s or early 40s.
There are many things in this House that one would want to see changed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), alluded to something that could happen in the United States Senate which has a singular effect on changing administration policy. It is very difficult to make those changes here, but it should be possible. The ordinary Member on the Government side of the House should be released from the overpowering albatross of Cabinet control,
Security Intelligence Service
of everything that moves or breathes in the Chamber, and so have some independence of thought.
One has only to go back to the books of 1920 describing the lives of the people who were the first bureaucrats, the mandarins in the administration of the Public Service. The philosophy is still the same. Gracious me, I heard an analysis of Bill C-24 on the radio this afternoon. It just happens that I have been very active on the committee hearing that Bill. One can see the almost Machiavellian hand of bureaucratic control that is being imposed through the net of Crown Corporations, not only Crown Corporations of a business type, but the cultural ones in particular. The Government has now reneged on its position. We see now that directors general of the National Arts Centre and people in the Canada Council were intimidated by telephone calls not to object to Cabinet power to appoint. We hope we will get the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) before the committee if the Government majority will allow the motion to be put by my colleague the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to the effect that the Minister and his deputy minister appear before the committee. That is as it should be.
I want to see more power and better services for individual Members. I want to thank the officers of the House who have served over the years. One also has to say goodbye to constituents, but one does not do it here because they are not present. As far as that goes, I think I have served them reasonably well as a parliamentarian. I did not have that opportunity, nor could I, nor would I, of being a Member of Parliament and conducting, shall we say, full practice of law at the same time, because I lived 46 hours away by train when I was first elected. Then it became 14 hours' flying time, and it is now three and a half to four hours.
Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, and having said some other things the other night on my motion with regard to the Commissioners of Internal Economy, I would like to say a few words about this Bill. I was torn really, I felt in a dilemma, over the proposal because I felt, and I still do, that ideally it would be better for a civilian intelligence agency to look after that side of the business and for the RCMP to concentrate upon being the federal police force and to carry out any of its duties that might involve the RCMP with the operation of civil intelligence and so forth. I said ideally. There I think I share the opinion of many of my colleagues. But having gone into this Bill rather more deeply in asking questions, particularly the one that was answered the other day by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) himself as to why does the Director of this agency, why does the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and why do three or four other directors who have the rank of deputy minister now, in the last 15 years and in this case with the implementation of this legislation, report through the Deputy Solicitor General? The answer given to me was fashioned by the bureaucrats. It was self-serving. The Minister shakes his head.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I shake my head because it was my own answer.

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The Minister has been under that influence so much that he cannot escape it. I want to tell him that I was a Member and knew the commissioners of the RCMP at the time the change was made. Hitherto the Commissioner reported directly to the Minister, but then the force suffered the indignity of having its Commissioner report to a deputy solicitor general. It is the same with this Bill.
The Minister may say that he prefers to read an additional set of condensed memos of a Solicitor General in addition to the files and the recommendations he will see from the heads of the services who report directly to him. I am one of those who asks why hire watchdogs and have someone else do the barking? Or another good lesson for a Cabinet Minister is why hire a watchdog and do your own barking? In other words, you do all the messing around down below and cannot keep your hands off the Department.
This is one of the fundamental reasons I do not like this particular Bill. I am awfully uncomfortable about the definition of "subversive". Of course, I share the total unease of my colleagues and of, I am sure, some Government Members with regard to the review committee.
Turning to Clause 6(3), it reads as follows:
Directions issued by the Minister under subsection (2) shall be deemed not to be satutory instruments for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.
Why not? It is because they will escape review. It is unfortunate that the Senate of Canada does not have the same power as the Senate of Australia. The power of the Australian Senate with regard to the Statutory Instruments Act is that statutory instruments can be revoked if it is felt that they are improper. When the Statutory Instruments Act was passed, if I recall and subject to error, the future Prime Minister was Minister of Justice. It is the biggest mish-mash which exists. First, it allowed the mandarinate to determine what were statutory instruments and thereby remove as much as possible some of the directives from public examination by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.
Have Hon. Members seen-and I think it was the only time it was ever attempted-the review section in the Statutory Instruments Act wherein there are positive reviews and negative reviews, wherein are written rules of procedure for the House and for the other place which have never been incorporated into our rules and procedures? In fact, the last special committee looking into procedure totally ignored the review provisions in the Statutory Instruments Act.
My last point concerns the responsibilities of the Director. For the general operational policies of the service, he must consult with the Deputy Minister. If the Director or any of his designated employed persons seeks a warrant or the renewal of a warrant, it has to be done in consultation with the Deputy Minister.
Briefly, notwithstanding the charade on votes last night and this morning, notwithstanding a general sympathy which I have in separating the roles of the RCMP, and notwithstanding what I think is a more proper central intelligence service, I will vote against this Bill. The Bill as it stands before us is a thoroughly bad one in its main provisions.


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I should like for the moment to set aside the partisan debate we are having in so far as this particular Bill is concerned. I have not put in the number of years which the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has put into this place, but I, too, will be leaving the House of Commons very shortly.
It might be of interest for him to know that the future Prime Minister, when I had the privilege of serving as his Parliamentary Secretary, said: "When Marcel Lambert gives you his word, you know that that is his bond". Quite often we considered tax legislation and as two young bucks received a lot of good advice from the Hon. Member who would say: "Don't be rushing it. Just give us time to play with it. You will get your Bill next week", and we always knew we would. That was a significant tribute from the then Minister of Finance.
I made a point of going back and looking over some of the debates. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West on more than one occasion was called upon on Budget night, when all the focus was on the Minister of Finance, the Budget and the lock-up of the press, and had what I always thought was a very difficult task. He had to respond immediately on the particular night to a Budget which he had only seen shortly before. The then Minister of Finance said: "Go back and read the Budget speeches which Marcel has made because they are classics in responses to Budgets". It is significant to indicate that they were all different. There were different emphases and different lengths. Sometimes, as he said, the Hon. Member even had a tendency to lose his temper.
I should like to say that it has been a privilege to be in the House while the Hon. Member was here. He has a long and distinguished career not only in the House but as a veteran who was taken prisoner at Dieppe. Those of us who have known you as a friend will forget some of the partisanship and say that we hope you will enjoy your retirement, if that is the proper word, although I cannot see a man as active as you actually retiring. I know I do not intend to; I am going to another job.
In terms of this particular Bill I, too, am convinced that it is necessary to go to a civilian service. I, too, feel that some of the definitions could be tightened up somewhat. However, the difficulty we have is that which the Hon. Member signified and indicated many times in the past. When someone does not get their way and brings in some 300 amendments at committee stage, there is no legitimate debate. Some of the amendments moved by the Hon. Member's colleague, the new critic of the Solicitor General, warrant more careful attention than they frankly received. However, when 300 amendments are being brought in by one Party and we are trying to debate a Bill which contains over 90 clauses, it is somewhat difficult to have a legitimate debate. One is almost bound to go with the Minister and with the Bill because it is significantly better than the status quo, with the Mounties there and no control.
June 21, 1984


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The fact that both hon. gentlemen may not be with us much longer is not reason enough for them to talk to each other. Remarks must be directed to the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I suppose one could forgive-two old hands having a little sentimental discussion. In reply, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has struck upon one of the salient points which characterizes this particular debate. Tactically I think it was disastrous to have dumped on the Order Paper this plethora of useless amendments. The points could have been made with a few well chosen amendments, the same as did the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who wanted to emphasize those points worth emphasizing. Then the House could have been engaged in meaningful debate. The Solicitor General might not have been moved in frustration, and I can understand his frustration, to bring in allocation of time. It might have resulted in a better Bill. The net result is that I find I am a loser. Since the Bill could not be changed in compliance with the desires of the House, not the bureaucracy, we are the losers.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to first say a few words of best wishes to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on his retirement. He has been here a long time, since 1957 if I am not mistaken. As one who was five years old when the Hon. Member was first elected to this House, I wish him well in his retirement.
I want to comment also on some of the remarks he as an experienced parliamentarian made on what transpired last night. In the short time that I have been here, I have seen both Opposition Parties, because they felt strongly about a particular Bill and felt that no indication whatsoever had been given by the Government that there was an openness to amendments or change, demonstrate symbolically within the rules how strongly they felt about that.
That is what the Hon. Member's colleagues did on the Constitution when they came up with question of privilege after question of privilege, ad infinitum. That is what they did when they rang the bells for 16 days over the National Energy Program. We presented petitions ad infinitum because of the way we felt about changes in the Crow rate. Last night we felt that the final thing we could do to show the Canadian people that we really think that this is a watershed in the history of how we deal with security problems in this area was to make the House sit until five o'clock in the morning. That was not the end of the world. It is something Opposition Parties do from time to time to signal to the public, and indeed to the Government even if it does not bring about any change, how strongly they feel.
We should not get up and heap abuse on ourselves collectively by pretending that the only Parliament that is worth its salt is a Parliament that efficiently passes legislation put before it by the Government. Opposition Parties will feel strongly from time to time, that is how we felt last night. Plenty of people in my riding have had to work two shifts in a
Security Intelligence Service
row. I do not think it was a biological disaster for people to have to stay up until five o'clock in the morning.
The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Turner) knows that sometimes people work a shift on the railway and go right back out again, and they are in charge of millions of dollars of equipment for another eight hours. All we had to do was stand up and indicate where we stood on votes which the Hon. Member called trivia. But I notice he voted with us all the time. I just say to the Hon. Member that is the way that Parliament works. He ought to know that even better than I.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair to allow me to say a few words, as a member who has been here since the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) first came to the House and who has worked well with the Hon. Member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) first as a fellow member and also in another capacity as the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I am very grateful to him for his expert contribution in establishing the rules governing the Chair. I want to wish him on my behalf and on behalf of those who worked with him on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, all the best on his retirement from Parliament. I am very happy to know that I will have a lifelong friend in Western Canada. And for a Liberal, that is quite something.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Hon. Members have taken the opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague for his many quality years of service in the House. I hope that sometime in the next Five or six days the House will take some time to do the same for all Members who have decided not to return to this Chamber. That is not to take away from my good friend from Edmonton West who has taught us a lot. I came here ten years ago as a total greenhorn, not only to Parliament but also to politics. I have learned something every time the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has spoken. As I said, I hope that in paying tribute to him we do not at the same time in the next week overlook the fact that there are others who will not be returning. We owe to them all a debt of gratitude for the work they have done here. We will have an opportunity to honour them. These are the closing hours on this debate on Bill C-9-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I hope there is no misunderstanding between the Hon. Member and the Chair. There is a minute left in the question and comment period. I had not yet called for debate. I had recognized the Hon. Member for a comment or question. We will now go back to debate.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to use at least some of the time I am allowed, in concluding the

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
debate on Bill C-9, to pay tribute to the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
When I was elected in 1979 and re-elected in 1980, the first committee on which I was privileged to sit was the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. At the time, the Committee had the honour or perhaps the misfortune to consider the Bank Act. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that the task was a difficult one and when I compare the debate on Bill C-9-I must say it is small beer, especially when we consider that the Bank Act is reviewed every ten years-with the eloquent and incisive comments of the Member for Edmonton West and the wisdom of the Chairman, the Member for Sarnia . .. Having known them both as friends, I am very sad to see them go, although I realize they will both still be able to do great things for this House and for our country.
Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of speaking two or three times before in the debate on Bill C-9. The first time, I surprised a number of Hon. Members on a Friday morning by putting the previous question, which had the effect of referring the Bill to Committee. I did so to satisfy my own concern, as a Member of this House, that my colleagues in the House and on the Committee would have a chance to examine thoroughly this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and you understand I am referring to my hon. friend from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).. . The real problem with the Left in this country, which is strangely similar to that of the American Left, becomes obvious when they are faced with legislation like the Bill on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If they really want to improve a Bill they consider to be defective, obstruction is not the way to do it. The answer is not to prevent debate but to encourage it.
Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. However, my hon. friend from Burnaby not only wants to have his cake and eat it, he wants the icing and the candles, and he wants the candles lit the way he wants them to be lit, otherwise he does not want the cake at all. That is not our attitude. Mr. Speaker, if we consider that this debate on Bill C-9 is not something new . . . The debate on Bill C-9, on this particular service, has been going on for at least fifteen years. Fifteen years of intensive study and debate. Unfortunately, we have met with a complete lack of common sense and understanding for parliamentary procedures, especially on the part of Members of the New Democratic Party.


Gaston Gourde: A lack of common decency!


Pierre Deniger: A lack of common decency, says the Parliamentary Secretary, on the part of the Members opposite.
Mr. Speaker, the Government had a choice. It could have decided to do nothing. However, it decided to act responsibly and to do so while taking a number of precautions. What were those precautions, Mr. Speaker? That should be obvious. We had two Commissions of Inquiry: the Mackenzie Commission
and the McDonald Commission. And as if that were not enough, we then decided to refer the matter to the Senate. And as if that were not sufficient, after the MacKenzie Commission, the McDonald Commission and the Special Senate Committee, we referred the matter to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, under the able and talented chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who, unfortunately, is leaving us as well. And throughout the process of dedicated hard work on this Bill, we did not get the co-operation we were entitled to expect from the Members opposite, considering the Bill is a reform Bill and should satisfy people who want to make a better world.
Mr. Speaker, people who see a glass with a little water in it will say either that it is half full or that it is half empty according to their own way of thinking. Unfortunately, the Hon. Members opposite always see the glass as being half empty. However, it is important to note that this Bill clearly identifies the mandate and the powers of the Security Intelligence Service. These powers are now subject to judicial control.
Mr. Speaker, to give as an example of how frustrating it is for us to discuss with the Members opposite in this House, I would like to recall the debate on Motion No. 61. This was an amendment moved by the Members opposite which we had rewritten, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) told us that such an amendment made no sense, even though it was his own amendment which had simply been rewritten to comply with the criteria applicable to legal literature. As a Member of Parliament, I find this type of comment absolutely nonsensical, incredible and unsatisfactory because this judicial control does indeed constitute the insurance policy which should tell all of us that there cannot be any abuse of the system.
Beside, Mr. Speaker, there will not only be judicial control, especially under the Constitution which we have given ourselves and this country, and which should ensure this independence and guarantee that our most fundamental rights will be preserved just in case someone does not do his job as he should or fulfill his mandate as provided.
There will also be an independent review process which will be carried out by the Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which will both be accountable to Parliament, something which is not provided for at this time. Now what do we have exactly? Mr. Speaker, we have several controls to guard against the abuses about which we have been hearing so much from the Members opposite, especially the NDP Members, because they are altogether negative and pessimistic. Instead of trying to improve this Bill, they have tried to see to it that it is completely destroyed.


An Hon. Member:: They do not trust anyone!


Pierre Deniger: there is Parliament. Third, there is the service itself and the Solicitor General.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to guarantee the security of Canada while providing better controls, better monitoring mechanisms, through which we can guarantee that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians will also be protected.
Certain critics have asked about the very substance of this Bill and said: What is it that must be protected? Some have even denied that the security of the country is threatened. Some would want us to believe that, here in Canada, we are living in a completely serene and pure world where we shall never need such a security agency while the facts revealed by the Mackenzie and McDonald Commissions clearly show the opposite to be true.
Canada is a nice country! It is a great country. However, it is a country which needs to be protected. Past and recent events prove it. Let us look at past events. I had the misfortune to be more aware of one of these events than any other Member of this House. In 1945, Mr. Gouzenko's revelations shook Canada and the Western world and showed to what extent it was possible to have a wide-ranging spy network in a country as peaceful as ours. This spy network was present throughout our society. Even a Member of the House of Commons named Fred Rose was found guilty of espionage. Mr. Speaker, this threat did not disappear; it still existed in the seventies, for instance. We closed our doors to 44 Soviet diplomats. We expelled 111 between 1978 and 1983.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the events of the seventies. Because as Member for La Prairie-I was not a Member in 1970-I had a member who was still alive, he was called Pierre Laporte, he lived in Saint-Lambert on Robitaille Street, the street next to my in-law's, less than a quarter of a mile from my home, and perhaps I am the last constituent whom Pierre Laporte saw alive. Mr. Speaker, I am the last constituent whom Pierre Laporte saw alive. I was a law student then and we had a project on parliamentary procedure. So, quite naively, I called my MNA, who was a Minister at the time. I told him: Mr. Laporte, perhaps you do not know me, I am a student and I would like to see you because, as a law student, I have some work to do on parliamentary procedure. He asked me: Are you Medard's son? I said yes. He told me: Come and see me anytime. So I asked him: When, Mr. Laporte? He said Friday. I asked him at what time? He said 5 p.m. I saw him at 5 p.m. for a 15-minute appointment, but I stayed an hour and half. The day after he was kidnapped. He was kidnapped at noon the following day, was never again to be seen alive. That happened to me, it happened at home. It was done by Longueuil residents who lived on the street where I was born. They lived at 240 Gar-denville Street and I was born at 186 Gardenville Street. And they kidnapped my MNA who was a Minister at the time. He was a friend of our family. He spent his last hours helping a
Security Intelligence Service
student who had a law project. And he died. Perhaps he was even tortured, but nobody knows. And they tell me that we have no problems in Canada? They tell me that we do not need that in Canada? They tell me that it cannot happen in Canada? Well it did happen and we were there. And I was a lot closer to it than many people. I still see Mrs. Laporte and her children. If you think that they are not hurt, Mr. Speaker, and it you think that they would not have liked to have that kind of agency which might have prevented this odious crime, this murder ... I, for one, think that they would have felt more secure knowing that such an agency existed and could indeed have prevented that murder. And that did not happen in Afghanistan, it happened in Saint-Lambert. Those people who lived on my street, Gardenville Street in Longueuil, and who kept him prisoner at Saint-Hubert, on the south shore, my home. And they tell me we do not need it! They tell me that an agency such as we had in the past is adequate, but past events show clearly that it was not adequate.
Mr. Speaker, we are not talking only about local attempts because there are attempts which originate outside this country. Armenians do not agree with Turks and, unfortunately, they kill Turkish diplomats here in Canada. Those diplomats have families. Do they not deserve protection? Should we not protect as well those who might be injured in those attempts? Should we not make sure that the people whose sole responsibility and mandate is to look after the security of this country can do their job? That seems obvious to me. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, terrorism is not on the wane in 1984, it is increasing.
Let us think of what is going on in Lybia. Let us think of what is going on about everywhere in the Middle East. Let us think of the terrorist acts in France, Britain, even the United States, Mr. Speaker, and even Toronto! Let us think of the bombs that were put in certain plants, because someone might not agree with the type of products they were making. And Hon. Members suggest we might not need that! Our rights might be threatened! I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our rights are threatened in the absence of such an agency. They are threatened if we do not take the necessary steps to ensure there will be no recurrence of those crimes.
Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, if you allow the quote, that God granted man liberty under the condition that he show eternal vigilance.
If we are to blame, it is not for putting forward this legislation but for having done nothing about it for 15 years. Finally the Solicitor General had the courage and ability to defend his convictions, to put the legislation forward. Some Hon. Members criticized the bill, but did they truly attempt to determine the true intention of the legislation? Not at all, Mr. Speaker, all they did was filibuster! With his competent Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister succeeded in giving countless marks of patience to ensure that the bill goes through. And some Members have the gall to state it is not perfect. The

June 21, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
real shortcoming would be in not having it. What would be wrong would be to be deprived of it.
Mr. Speaker, that system will be envied by all free nations, by all civilized people in our world. When I see such a security system administer a civilian agency, which will surely be staffed with former RCMP officers ... I have 144 RCMP officers living in Brossard! And if you think they are against it, you are dead wrong. Quite the opposite, they want those people finally to know exactly what their mandate is, what their job is. This is something they did not have. A former Crown Attorney, the Hon. Member for Halifax must have been quite something of a Crown Attorney judging by his attitude, Mr. Speaker.
So, I want to suggest that this legislation was needed. It meets a requirement. Not an academic, hypothetical requirement, but a requirement we all experienced in this country. A requirement that is evident every evening on the newscast, when we look at what is happening in France, in Britain, in the United States, among certain groups. Hon. Members talk of freedom. My answer Mr. Speaker, is Jefferson's statement: Freedom is vigilance. Vigilance itself. Just as taxes are the price to be paid for democracy, police is a price to be paid for vigilance. And that agency, Mr. Speaker, does not infringe upon our basic rights, on the contrary.
It is this very agency, Mr. Speaker, which will preserve our fundamental rights. As for those who do not believe in this Parliamentary institution, who do not believe in the judiciary, who do not trust the morality of our present police officers, who do not believe that there are people in this country who are prepared to ensure that the country works, to see to it that their freedoms are maintained, well, what can I say, Mr. Speaker? They live within their own world . . . too bad for them! However, I am sure that if ever we face a threat such as we were unfortunate to face in the past, Liberal members of Parliament, who had the courage to stand behind this Bill which will be put to a vote in a few minutes will be praised by the Canadian public, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, the opposition party will be scorned because it did not have the courage to improve this legislation! Canadians will say to members on the other side that they did not live up to they responsibilities, that they were remiss in their duty. And they will be the ones who will bear the brunt of such criticism, Mr. Speaker, because we on this side did not shirk our responsibilities. This legislation has been in the making for 15 years, we have been considering it for 15 years and we had to bear with the filibustering and the arrogance of members on the other side. The Hon. Member, the former Crown Attorney, does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker; if only he had gone through what we had to go through ... I can assure you that we intended to pass this particular bill without time limitation and with full opportunity for the opposition members . .. Since we had good participation-


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Miss Carney:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive the notice requirements for two amendments to the National Housing Act in order that they may be printed. I have discussed this with the House Leaders of both Parties and there has been no objection.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has discussed the matter with myself, and we agree.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to the request of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speech just made by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) is the worst I have ever heard in my life.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 8.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 19, 1984, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House.
Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved:
That Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting the enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
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 yeas have it.
June 21, 1984

And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from all parties. I had consultations with the House Leaders and I think there is unanimous consent for the House not to sit on Monday of next week so that we can properly celebrate the Saint-Jean-Baptiste.
Therefore, I move, seconded by both Opposition House leaders:
That, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 22, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 26, 1984.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Say it in French.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -c'est moi, Hnatyshyn, qui vous parle-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: "Ukrenski"!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -in Ukranian!

I am very pleased to second this motion. It is an important celebration for Francophones across Canada. We in the Progressive Conservative Party are quite prepared-


John Carnell Crosbie: It's St. John's day in Newfoundland.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -to go along with the Government House Leader's proposals, and are happy to do so.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we also agree.


Mr. Speaker:: By unanimous consent, moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard)-

That, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 22, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until Tuesday, June 26, 1984.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion carried.

It being 9.20 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11.00 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 9.20 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 22, 1984