1984-03-16

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, this morning several young Canadians attended in the precincts of this House and obtained their gold and silver citizenship awards in a ceremony that was rather impressive to all who saw it. That they come from the Fourth Leamington Scout Troop is, of course, important to me, but I think they represent the best of what scouting stands for in all of Canada. This is something I am sure is important to all of us in this House.
Their leadership demonstrates that voluntarism is alive and well in Canada, and that we as Canadians can conclude from these achievements that a bright future lies ahead for Canada as a result of what they have achieved and of what the volunteers who are behind them have allowed them to achieve.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, last year the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) announced that he was terminating innovative educational programs offered in nine federal penitentiaries by four Canadian universities. These programs were of proven worth since only 14 per cent of prison students become repeat offenders, compared to 52 per cent of all prisoners.
Following sustained pressure from Members in all Parties in the House, the Minister reversed his decision and announced he would reinstate the program. However, the Minister's policy on the reinstated program is subverting its goals. He called for bids from universities over the Christmas period, giving them from three to seven weeks to bid for a three-year contract. The main obstacle, however, to an adequate reimplementation of the program is the Minister's insistence on charging fees for the inmates. On the surface, $40 per course does not seem much, but when prisoners earn $3 a day and have to pay for toothpaste and other personal items out of this,
it is a lot of money. Not surprisingly, the correctional service is experiencing difficulties in working out arrangements with universities. These difficulties are so great that one official from correctional services recently suggested to the University of Victoria that it sub-contract the first two years of its program to a community college whose courses are free to inmates.
I urge the Solicitor General to re-think his misguided attitude toward the reinstatement of these valuable and cost-effective courses.


MEDICAL CARE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, a serious problem is developing in licensing foreign trained medical doctors to practise in Canada.
The foreign trained doctors to whom 1 am referring fell into two categories. The first consists of Canadian citizens who were not accepted at Canadian medical schools and received medical training in foreign medical schools.
The second category is composed of foreign born doctors who have fled hostile environments and have received landed immigrant status. In southern Ontario alone there are approximately 600 such doctors, with an estimated 100 coming from Poland. Not all of these are in the refugee class. While most of these doctors have successfully completed the Medical Council of Canada's evaluating examinations, the shortage of residency training facilities seriously impedes their chances of completing their internship requirements to qualify for licensing examinations.
I urge the Provincial Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons and the Medical Council of Canada to initiate whatever measures are necessary to solve this problem so that these foreign trained physicians can commence work in their chosen profession.


PARLIAMENT OF CANADA
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, what standard governs the public and private affairs and activities of a parliamentarian who holds a seat in the House of Cornsous-32

March 16, 1984
mons or the Senate of Canada? Our new Constitution Act and the Statutes of Parliament offer no real guidance. Indeed, those few obligations that are imposed are couched in language best described as vague and uncertain.
The responsibility for the absence of a clear code of conduct must be borne by parliamentarians, past and present. Yet circumstances are continually arising in which individual parliamentarians must assess their own actions to determine whether they have violated any recognized standard of behaviour.
The process of personal self assessment is difficult for anyone, but for an elected representative sworn to perform parliamentary duties it is a nearly impossible task. Only vague legislative provisions and obscure historic precedents are present as guides. The answer to questions of personal conduct can only be found in the heart and soul of the person who examines his or her own conscience.
It is in that context that Canadians should consider the decision of the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist) to resign from the House of Commons. I am certain no code of conduct, however strict, enacted by Parliament, would ever require a Member of the House of Commons to resign while judicial proceedings were pending and the verdict not finalized. Nonetheless, the Hon. Member for Scarborough East has imposed upon himself a higher standard of conduct, one dictated by his own conscience and not imposed by any legal authority. No one has the right to stand in judgment on another but, if judgment is rendered, it must be that our colleague acknowledged a higher command-


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


DISARMAMENT
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of the House should be aware that a country-wide peace petition campaign has been officially launched. Called the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign, organizers and thousands of participants hope to impress upon Hon. Members, upon candidates for the next federal election, and upon the three political Parties, the urgency of ending the arms race and the critical need to end Canada's participation in it.
The campaign has four stated goals-no Cruise testing, declaration of Canada as a nuclear weapons-free zone, conversion of arms industries to other industrial production, and a free vote in Parliament on those issues.
It is a pleasure to tell Hon. Members of the House and concerned Canadians working for the Peace Petition Caravan that all of us in the New Democratic Party support the
campaign and heartily endorse its four goals. In fact, we have been working toward the same goals and publicly advocating them for some time.
In the House it has been the NDP which has twice brought forward motions for no Cruise testing in Canada, motions defeated by the combined opposition of the other two Parties. We have raised, time and again, questions about Cruise testing, and we have brought forward Private Members' Bills to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone. All of us, and all NDP candidates for the next federal election, support the goals of the Peace Petition Caravan Campaign. I urge other Members and other Parties to do the same.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the chickens of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) are coming home to roost. His February Budget did nothing to restore confidence in the ability of the Government to run the financial affairs of Canada which, I might remind the House, have been on a downhill skid ever since the days of John Turner.
The Grit ruse of using the recession to disguise its failure to address the underlying cause of high interest rates and inflation, is ended. Today's prime rate of 11.5 per cent, up half a per cent as a result of increases in the bank rate yesterday, foreshadow higher mortgage rates and a consequent decline in residential construction and industrial activity.
Canada is bleeding foreign reserves in a vain attempt to prop up a sick dollar and an even sicker Liberal popularity. Inflation is up again-last month at an annualized rate of over 7 per cent-giving the lie to the Liberal six and five program. How much longer must we tolerate this nonsense? We must have an election, and we must have it now.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to draw to the attention of the House the problems of Hamilton Civic Airport. For those Hon. Members who may not instantly recall the runway configurations at Mount Hope, let me outline what is happening as a result of the airport's expansion. Expansion is not the issue. All of us in the greater Hamilton area welcome the upgrading of our dilapidated airport to first-class regional status.
What concerns me and my constituents is the financial hardship this construction is causing members of the Hamilton Flying Club. This club was established in 1928 and is already having trouble keeping its head above water, or above the clouds, as the case may be.
March 16, 1984

Regional officials of Transport Canada decided to close down the main runways 6 and 24 for four months beginning June 1, 1984. In addition, Transport Canada is closing down the east-west runway. It is runway 24 that the northwest winds favour during the summer months, and that is the peak period for pilot training at Hamilton Civic Airport.
Transport Canada is demanding extra ramp charges and rentals for buildings at the airport, in keeping with the Department's policy when airport development is proceeding. In my view this is highly premature and unfair. Surely Transport Canada should not be trying to kill all flying operations during improvements which benefit the entire Hamilton region. Surely the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who is aware of the situation, could consult with his colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy), somewhere along the campaign trail-


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


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, our Party and everyone else concerned about the West Coast fishery have been very skeptical about the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and his policy of trading off fish habitat in one area for so-called enhancement in another. On December 20 the Minister assured the House that there would be a public process whereby all sectors would have the opportunity to put forward their views.
Last week the Department approved one of these trade-offs in the Cowichan area. There was no public process to hear the views of local people or of their elected representatives. They could not even get information about what was happening. Under the agreement, Doman Industries Limited gained the right to store logs on an increased area of the estuary, an action that will adversely affect fish habitat. In exchange it has dedicated 23 acres of farmland for habitat. This will be dyked at public expense, and Doman retains the right to pasture cows in the area.
Trading part of the estuary for a cow pasture cannot be described as no-net loss of fish habitat. It is a sellout of a public resource to private interests. I call on the Minister to reverse this so-called no-net loss policy, and to protect fish habitat so that we will continue to have a fisheries resource on the West Coast.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who brought down a Budget about a month ago in which he said: "My budget today is dedicated to building a strong and growing economy." Since that Budget was brought down, every indicator revealed has shown the exact opposite. Today the inflation rate is up again to a 5.5 per cent increase year-over-year. The underlying trend of the inflation rate is even higher; it is over 7 per cent. As the Minister knows, the dollar has depreciated from over 81 cents and is now struggling to remain above 78 cents. Interest rates are up. The prime rate of the banks is going up to 11.5 per cent. The Bank of Canada rate is up. The unemployment rate has been up two months in a row-11.3 per cent, 1,476,000 people.
I could go on and on, with every indicator, capacity utilization, and so on. All are bad. The Minister brought down his Budget about a month ago. These are the economic facts that have been revealed since. What does he plan to do to arrest this trend? What action does he plan to take to bring Canada back into a recovery? What is he going to do? His Budget has obviously been a complete failure.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to see that the Hon. Member has finally taken time to read the Budget. However, I would like to point something out to him in case he did not read other statistics that came out recently. I remind him that the retail sales for January, the latest figures available, were up significantly. Industrial production is up significantly. We had a record trade surplus in January, higher than in any previous month. In February we created 54,000 new jobs. Employment has been increasing steadily.
The Hon. Member referred to the inflation rate. I forecast in my Budget that in 1984 we would have an inflation rate of around 5 per cent. As the Hon. Member knows, the latest increase is due in great part, according to the Statistics Canada statement, to an increase in food products, resulting in particular from bad weather conditions in the United States. This is affecting the cost of fresh produce. These are the facts. Every indication is to the effect that the Canadian economy will know a strong rate of growth this year, with a reasonable level of inflation.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Minister says that 54,000 new jobs were created. The unemployed will say: "Tell it to the marines," and there are 1,476,000 of them. The rate of unemployment has risen.

March 16, 1984
Oral Questions MINISTER'S POSITION


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister might note that in Britain yesterday the banks lowered their prime lending rate to 8.5 per cent from 9 per cent. That is happening in a country with a Government which is attempting to do something about the economy rather than just talk and do nothing.
Inflation is up, the unemployment rate is up, interest rates are up; the Canadian dollar is down, business investment is down, real incomes are down, and of course the Government should be out. There is no trade-off between any of those areas. Normally unemployment would go down if the inflation rate is going up. However, in this whole series of statistics we see no trade-off. Will the Minister tell us what he is going to do now to correct the situation? Every indicator is bad, and there are no trade-offs. What is the Minister going to do?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, after hearing the Hon. Member I think that the main bad indicator is that of the decline in support for the Tories because of their panicky behaviour in this House and elsewhere.
The Hon. Member has a great deal of admiration for the situation in the United Kingdom. I remind him that in that country the unemployment rate is around 13 per cent at the present time, and the inflation rate is higher than it is in Canada. I believe it is around 8 per cent or 9 per cent. That is the great model which a Tory government would propose to the country. I can understand it if the Canadian people are saying to the Official Opposition: "Thank you very much, but we would rather pass and keep you fellows in opposition".


REQUEST FOR GENERAL ELECTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister thinks that the popularity of some other political Party is declining, why does he not persuade the Prime Minister to call an election? Or is he waiting for the new emperor who does not have any fiscal clothing either?
Let me ask the same question of the Minister again. There are 1,476,000 people who are unemployed. The real personal disposable income of every person is down, and the cost of living is going up for everyone. Interest rates are going up and will stop any pretence of economic recovery. You are the Government. You have been the Government for four years and you are a miserable failure. What are you going to do about it? What steps are you going to take?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May I invite the Hon. Member to address his remarks to the Chair, please?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see that the Hon. Member is losing his cool again. I must say that one good reason why an election is not being called now is to allow the public to see more and more of what kind of alternative exists on the other side. It is quite clear that, the more they look at it, the less they like it. The
Canadian people are becoming more and more aware that the Hon. Member has taken the position that the public should not know where he stands because, as he said: "If you knew what we would do, we would never get elected." It is becoming more and more obvious to the people across the country what that Party would do to the country if it were ever chosen. That is why it is going down the drain.
As far as we are concerned, we have announced a set of policies in the April Budget of 1983, and are pursuing those policies through the Budget of February 15, 1984. They are policies which will ensure consistent, steady and solid growth for the country over the next few years. We will not engage in any knee-jerk reactions. We will provide stable, solid leadership to the country in the economic field, as we will in other fields, and that is what the people of the country want.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE TO EXAMINE GOVERNMENT SPENDING PROGRAMS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the world has lost confidence in the Government despite the policies of April and February, because interest rates have risen, the unemployment rate has risen, and mortgage costs have risen. Everything goes up except the value of our currency. In view of this enormous lack of confidence, I wonder if the Minister would accept some advice from the House.
Would the Minister get the President of the Privy Council to appoint a special committee of the House to examine, in the broad range, the spending programs of the Government and the borrowing programs of the Government, so that the House could be responsible for some of the things that are happening and that it could have an input, thus giving the Minister assistance?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the official critic loses his cool, and the assistant, or substitute critic, is verging on the ridiculous.
There is a Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; estimates are before that committee; the Committee is sitting, so there is the possibility for examining the Estimates of all Departments before the committees at great length. If the Conservatives have anything to propose, or suggest, they can do it before those committees any time they want, or they can do it in the House. Last Monday we had an opposition day debate on a motion put forward by the Conservative Party, but they did not have a single constructive idea to put forward-not the beginning of an idea.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You would not know a constructive idea.


Marc Lalonde: The Conservatives have had plenty of opportunities to express their viess, but we know they have none. That is what the public is finding out, more and more. Those guys have no policies; they do not know whether they are coming or going, and they are just showing their divisions and
March 16, 1984

their inability to come out with anything worth-while for the country.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Your nose is growing.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, through his rhetoric the Minister is trying to patch over the problems the country faces. There is a tremendous lack of confidence, and we are asking for something to restore confidence.


GOVERNMENT'S SPENDING PLAN
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the present committee system does not work effectively in policing the over-all spending program of the Government, nor does it do anything with respect to the over-all borrowing requests of the Government.
What we are asking the Minister to do is to come up with a new program. He has had his six and five program, but that did not work. He has proposed a 4 per cent program, and that did not work. Will he take the House into his confidence and have a special committee of the House go over the over-all spending plan for the Government?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to the situation in Canada. I may remind him about the present situation in North America. He must have noticed that both interest rates and the rate of inflation have increased in the United States. Our two economies are extremely interdependent, and there is certainly no question of a lessening of confidence in the Canadian economy. What is happening now is specifically a North American phenomenon, and the Hon. Member is aware of the close interdependency between the Canadian and American economies. About his suggestion that the Opposition should be able to examine the full range of the Government's spending, that is exactly why annually, the Estimates for the various Departments are referred to the Standing Committees. Today, at this very moment, parliamentary committees are sitting to discuss the Estimates. If the Opposition has any useful ideas to propose, it can easily do so before these Committees or in the House. There have been Opposition days and there will be more. There is Question Period. At this very moment we are having a debate in the House on the Government's borrowing authority and the Opposition has ample opportunity to propose initiatives it would like to take. However, the only suggestion we have received was not made in the House. It was made by the Official Opposition Critic, who said that as far as he was concerned, he would cut family allowances and old age pensions. This was later denied by his Leader. I am very anxious to see when those two will reconcile their differences and we will be able to find out what the Progressive Conservative policy is on this issue.
Oral Questions


INCREASE IN RATE OF INFLATION-EFFECT ON INTEREST RATES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Over the past three years we have seen the inflation rates of the country increase, and because of this fixation, this traumatization that has occurred around an increase in inflation, the Government has always responded by increasing interest rates. The idea has been to increase interest rates and throw thousands of Canadians out of work in an effort to bring down the rate of inflation. Well, over the past number of weeks and months we have seen a gradual increase in inflation. We see it again today. Can we expect the same kind of behaviour by the Minister of Finance and the Governor of the Bank of Canada in terms of the typical knee-jerk and mindless response to this increase in inflation? Are we going to see interest rates increased?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Government does not increase interest rates. The slight increase in inflation we have known this month is not one which will lead the Government somehow to direct that there should be an increase in interest rates. This is not how the economy works, and my friend knows it.
The fact is that interest rates had been edging up in the United States before they started edging up in Canada in the last several weeks.
I am confident that the increase in rates we are seeing at the present time is not going to be substantial. I hope it will not be long lasting. The evolution of the situation in the United States, in particular, is being followed very carefully, and there is every reason to believe that we will not see large increases in interest rates over the next several weeks.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ORDER REDUCTION OF INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has got to stop hoping that interest rates are not going to increase, and stop wishing for a recovery. It seems to me that the Minister of Finance is at a crossroads. He is at a very important point. With the decreasing value of the dollar, the inclination is for him to increase interest rates. With the increase in inflation, the reaction is again to increase interest rates.
The Minister knows full well that with an increase in interest rates the recovery is not going to be sustained. Will the Minister of Finance take it upon himself to provide some leadership and face this problem, in terms of ensuring a prolonged, sustained recovery by stopping this increase in interest rates and taking some action in directing the Governor of the Bank of Canada to reduce interest rates?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, ever since my appointment I have tried to provide strong,

March 16, 1984
Oral Questions
clear, and responsible leadership on an economic basis. I certainly would not, however, follow the route suggested by my hon. friend, which is not only naive but would be irresponsible in the circumstances.


ROLE OF CHARTERED BANKS-INCREASE IN PROFITS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate to point out that, because of the policies of the Minister of Finance, as he is trying to keep down interest rates and trying to provide economic leadership, the obvious winners have been the banks. We found out just the other day that in 1983 there were hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars in bank profits. As a matter of fact, the domestic profits of the Royal Bank of Canada were up 130 per cent in 1983 over 1982, some of the highest in Canadian banking history. Why is it that the Minister of Finance continues to take direction from the banks? Why does he not start paying some attention to the people of this country, and introduce an interest rate policy which reflects people as opposed to bank profits?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the more I hear the Hon. Member the more I think that he should be a member of the Social Credit Party rather than of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: I am not saying the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. I mean the genuine Social Credit Party of Major Douglas himself.
I am not taking directions or instructions from the banks. I have consulted with all kinds of groups of Canadians in the preparation of last two Budgets, labour leaders, representatives of business, farmers, consumers, women's groups. This I have done and intend to continue to do. The policies I have put forward are policies which I have arrived at following all those consultations. They are aimed at helping the average Canadian and making sure that we will create jobs over the next few years in the private sector where the jobs should be created, particularly in the small and medium-sized business sector. This is the gist of my last Budget as well as of the previous Budget, and I intend to pursue those policies because I believe those policies are the ones which are going to be best for the country.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I would like to address my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. The new Crown corporation legislation fails to address the priority problem with respect to the role of the boards of directors in Crown corporations. In light of the fact that Governor in
Council appointments of chairmen and chief executive officers ignore all the recommendations of the Lambert Royal Commission, of the Auditor General and of the Public Accounts Committee, could the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell us why the Government has not addressed this most essential element in Crown corporation accountability?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Bill does address the subject, probably not in the way in which the Hon. Member would have done it, but that is not surprising. If the Hon. Member wants to argue the substance of the Bill, we will ensure that he will have a chance to do that early on second reading.


EXEMPTION FROM LEGISLATION OF INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, if the Bill is so good why has it not covered, and in fact ignored, 109 mixed and joint enterprises and their subsidiaries? Perhaps the Right Hon. Prime Minister could also explain why the International Development Research Council has been given complete special exemption?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the latter case it is because the IDRC is a very special type of corporation. As the Hon. Member probably knows, it is composed 50 per cent, roughly, of directors who are not Canadian citizens. They are nationals of other countries. This was done when the Bill was first passed by this Parliament more than ten years ago. It was to ensure that this agency, which is exemplary in the sense it is being used as an example for other countries which want to follow Canada's lead in establishing a research centre on North-South problems, will not be carrying out the policies of government. This corporation is in a very special situation, and that is why we have treated it differently.
As far as the first part of the question on directors is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to a lot of joint corporations. I do not know the examples he has in mind. However, they are not presumably Crown corporations. They are corporations in which the Government of Canada has some shares, but not the control.


ACCESS FOR NEWSPRINT TO EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. I want to draw his attention to the action by the European Economic Community in restricting duty free access for newsprint from 1.5 million tonnes to 500,000 tonnes. This action has now been referred to GATT. I want to know from the Minister just what the federal Government is doing to state the Canadian case before GATT and to ensure that this
March 16, 1984

action is rescinded? Would the Minister also tell us whether he realizes just how serious the consequences of this kind of reduction would be to our pulp and paper industry in Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his interest in a very serious trading problem for Canada. We have carried on negotiations at all levels, including involvement by myself as Minister, over many months with the European Economic Community in an attempt to reach a settlement which would be reasonable from the point of view of Canada's interests and from the point of view of our producers of newsprint. These producers provide a great number of jobs based on that market, particularly in the Atlantic Provinces and eastern Quebec.
Unfortunately the European Economic Community has been unable to come forward with a proposal which would be accepted. Against that background, I have finally turned to GATT for Canadian rights to be protected. A GATT panel, which will be fully presented with the Canadian case, will make an adjudication upon its merits.
What the European Economic Community has done is to establish an interim quota of 500,000 tonnes. That does not mean that 500,000 tonnes is the total amount that we can ship, or that there may not be some flexibility beyond that point. However, there was not sufficient flexibility to provide a figure which would be acceptable to me, and it is on that basis that I have taken action to protect the Canadian interest.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what the Minister has done to assure that GATT deals with this matter expeditiously so it can be resolved. It creates all kinds of uncertainty. As he knows, we ship more than 500,000 tonnes of newsprint to Europe, and the industry cannot absorb the proposed 10.5 per cent import tax. I would also ask the Minister what precipitated this action in the first place. Where is our system flawed in that we did not know this was coming on and we did not take the necessary steps to prevent this from happening in the first place?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that if he had followed the issue and kept in touch with the unions and companies involved, or with my Department, he would know that we did indeed know the matter was coming on and that we did everything possible, through negotiations over a sustained period of time, to reach agreement with the Europeans. Indeed, we thought we were making substantial progress. Unfortunately they backed down from indications in that direction. I might say that the way the European community operates on some matters seems to indicate it must have agreement of all members, and it is the lowest common denominator, if you like, which may stop it from making a reasonable settlement.
Oral Questions
However, this was brought on primarily by the fact that the European community has entered into a special arrangement on trade with the Scandinavian countries which now gives special access to newsprint from that area into the European market. European producers themselves, pressing for some limitation on the amount which can move on a duty-free basis into their area, turned to the NFM situation. We, as the largest supplier outside of Europe, are the ones most affected by what they propose to do. We certainly do have to ship them more than 500,000 tonnes, and I am confident that this year we will do so. I am also confident that our position will be vindicated at GATT.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and they can handle it together if they wish. What possible explanation can there be for a person, having run out of unemployment insurance benefits and ultimately being forced on welfare, being refused the opportunity to take a job for which there is a wage subsidy paid? Why would it be that a person on welfare would be considered less acceptable to be employed by an employer receiving a wage subsidy from the Government, than a person who is on unemployment insurance?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know a little more about the context of the Hon. Member's quesiton. If he is referring to a specific case, I would be happy to look into it. If he is referring to a specific program requirement, I would like to know which program he is referring to so I can look into that.


CASE IN WINDSOR
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, in Windsor the employment branch of the Ministry refused to allow a welfare recipient, who had been employed for eight and a half years as a janitor and ran out of benefits in November of last year, to apply for a job for which a wage subsidy was being paid. He was told: "If you are on welfare, you do not qualify". What possible explanation can there be for a person, having exhausted his benefits and being forced onto welfare, being refused the opportunity to take a job?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, it sounds to me as if either there is some selectivity or distortion. I am not arguing that there necessarily is.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is your program.

March 16, 1984
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Either that is the case, or there has been a tremendous misunderstanding expressed in relation to one of our programs. If the hon. gentleman will give me the details of the person involved, I will check to see if someone has given the wrong information. Without the specifics, I cannot inquire into a specific case.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works who is responsible for CMHC. A study on social housing policy has been going on within CMHC for quite some time now. Could the Minister tell us the status of that study?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the final results of the study were circulated to provincial Governments and interested groups, and MPs, I believe. If not, I will be happy to send it. These organizations have been asked to prepare comments. Some have come forward, but I still have not had a complete enough reaction to be able to indicate when the policy recommendation would come forward. I hope to do that before the summer.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works as well, involving the Special Recovery Capital Projects for the City of Halifax. In April of 1983 his colleague, the Hon. Member for Halifax, announced a $51 million office complex for the Halifax waterfront. Ten months went by, nothing happened, and then the same Member announced a $30 million complex for another part of the city. Can the Minister of Public Works explain just what is going on? Will he take the opportunity to tell us how it comes about that a $51 million waterfront complex shrinks to a $30 million office building in another part of the city? What has happened to all the architectural drawings and processes, not to mention the loss of 1,000 jobs that were promised?


Gerald Augustine Regan: That will not save your seat.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if I were to get a building worth $30 million, or $50 million, or $20 million, or $10 million in my city, I would be very happy and proud. The fact is that there has been some delay because of the difficulty in obtaining the site for the building. However, after difficult negotiations we have had to resort to expropriation, which process is now underway. Meanwhile planning for the building and preparing specifications for tendering are going on, and I expect the matter will be resolved in six or eight weeks.


STARTING DATE INQUIRY
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, that is a new twist for the Liberal Party. They used to say: "What's a million?" Now they are saying: "What's $20 million?" Why was the project reduced from the $50 million initially proposed, which would have provided 1,000 jobs according to the Hon. Member? I want some guarantee from the Minister, not from the Member for Halifax who has made many promises, that this project will go ahead. I would like to know when it will start, that is to say, when do you start employing people and stop having press conferences?


John Horton McDermid: He has announced it six times.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the project will go ahead with the enthusiastic support and assistance of my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, and in spite of the carping criticism of the Hon. Member.


Howard Edward Crosby: We will see.


ST. REGIS INDIAN RESERVE STUDY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare who yesterday released volume I of Dr. Selikoffs study on environmental contamination of Cornwall Island. This past January I spoke to an associate of Dr. Selikoff in New York who told me that the study was complete and would be in the hands of the Department by mid-February. It is now midMarch, and I would like to ask the Minister why, one month later, only one part of this report is being released.
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the study on the contaminants found in the reserve is in fact, up until now, already 18 months late. We have been putting on pressure in all ways, including a letter from the Department of Justice, but I do not want to turn the problem into a legal one. We have no reason to worry, other than the fact that Dr. Selikoff and his team have undertaken maybe too much work at the same time.
What we received yesterday, and that I released immediately, was the first part of the health study giving the results of the fluoride level in the blood of the people living on the St. Regis Reserve. I think it is important to have the first part at least completed and released into the hands of the Indians who are before the tribunal in the United States, and who, I hope, will be able to make use of that study.
March 16, 1984


REQUEST FOR SPEEDY RELEASE OF REPORT
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, the taxpayers have spent some $1.6 million on this study, and we have waited for it for a total of four years. The Minister has only released the part that relates to the fluoride emissions. What about other contaminants that have been studied, such as mercury, mirex, and PCBs, that have been found in the bloodstream of Indians on that reserve? Can the Minister assure us that she will not keep the remainder of the report under wraps any longer and will release the rest of it to the House immediately?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that anyone who has worked with researchers is well aware of the problem often associated-too often, unfortunately-with getting a report out of their hands. I think we should not read any bad faith or other problems into it.
The first part is concluded. We released it immediately. We will do the same thing, and continue to press for a report on mirex, PCBs, and mercury, which are the other three contaminants that Dr. Selikoff and his team are studying at the Mount Sinai school in New York.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Talking about ridiculous, I would say that he is the one in this House who is ridiculous. The Minister says the Government has no effect on interest rates; however, 92 per cent of savings goes toward government consumption. Unemployment in the United States has gone down, whereas it has risen in Canada. While the Government has introduced some excellent tax breaks for successful businesses, what will it do to create new employment in new enterprises, to get the country going and create jobs for Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to hear the tribute the Hon. Member is paying to the measures that the Government has already announced in the last two Budgets. It is nice to hear this from the Conservative side, and I hope he will have a word with their finance critic to convince him of the value of the measures that the Government has announced.
As far as the creation of new jobs is concerned, I remind my hon. friend that I introduced measures, in the last Budget particularly, to help small and medium sized businesses. The simplification of the taxation field will generate about $150 million in tax savings for that very important sector of our economy.
I also remind him that in the area of support for small business, the investment tax credits and the research and
Oral Questions
development tax credits are in operation at the present time and available to those who want to get into business. As well, the incentives and support provided by the taxation sector in Canada compare quite favourably with the incentives provided in almost any other industrialized country. In the last Budget we provided $2.4 billion worth of tax incentives to the private sector. That is the sector from which the jobs will be created fundamentally in this country.
We have several billions of dollars in expenditures in terms of job training, direct job creation in the public sector, and for temporary jobs, in order to alleviate the high level of unemployment that we know at the present time. However, it will fundamentally be through the private sector that the jobs will be created.


Thomas Scott Fennell: What the Government is missing is confidence on behalf of investors and entrepreneurs to start new businesses.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES ON NEW EMPLOYMENT CREATING ENTERPRISES
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, the fact that interest rates have risen another one-half per cent frightens people off. What will the Minister do about interest rates to provide security and create new enterprises in Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, interest rates have come down quite significantly over the last two years, from approximately 22 per cent to 11 per cent. So there has been a very significant decline.
My hon. friend should not panic because there is a slight increase in the interest rates taking place at the present time. For instance, he knows that we have put forward a proposal for mortgage rate interest protection in the housing area. This proposal has been extremely well received by the housing industry, and I hope to be able to come to the House with a specific Bill in the next several weeks which I hope will have broad and strong support from the Opposition so that the legislation can come into effect and, indeed, provide the type of security that Canadians wish, and for which the Hon. Member is asking. This will provide a great deal of security to Canadian home owners and potential home buyers concerned about increases in interest rates.
As far as the general business sector is concerned, the Hon. Member knows that we expect that, both in Canada and the United States, in spite of temporary increases in interest rates there will be a decline in interest rates over the year.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. In two weeks the

March 16, 1984
Oral Questions
Young Offenders Act will be proclaimed and to date there has been no announcement of any appropriate funding arrangements with any of the provinces. Would the Minister apprise the House of whether any agreements have actually been signed and, if so, what the nature of those agreements is?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, no agreements have in fact yet been signed. However, a federal offer has been on the table for well over a year and a half. Last week 1 did make that offer public. I would be prepared to send the Hon. Member, and any other Members, a copy of the proposal of the federal Government. I think he would agree, after he read it, that it was a very fair and reasonable contribution for the federal Government to be making to a program for which it has no constitutional responsibility at all to contribute to financially. Nevertheless, a very substantial offer has been put forward.
Mir. Hnatyshyn: It is certainly not a question of whether I feel that the offer is generous or otherwise. The problem is with respect to whether the provinces feel that this offer is appropriate.


ROLE OF PROVINCES IN ENFORCING LAW
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the offer that he has made-the S45 million, 50-50 split on the operational aspects of the program-what will the Minister do with respect to this program if the provinces do not accept his offer, having stated his intention to proclaim this Bill on April 1? How will he ensure that there will be even handed application of the law relating to young offenders across the country if the provinces are not going to co-operate with the Minister?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any province that is not prepared to co-operate and discharge its responsibility pursuant to a law which this Parliament unanimously passed. The provinces can be looked to, to govern themselves accordingly. I am sure they will recognize, as they must, that in the interest of decent treatment for young offenders, the new law ought to be applied evenly across the country. We look to the courts for the proper application of law, and I do not think the courts will let us down either.
As far as our financial responsibilities are concerned, when the new law is proclaimed, old funding arrangements will cease to be valid in many cases across the country because we had different agreements with different provinces, all of them covering the same basis of contributions. For some provinces the agreements will terminate.
At the moment it is hypothetical to ask what we will do in the event that no agreements are signed before then, because more than two weeks remain and I am optimistic that agreements can be signed before that time.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration is supplementary to that asked by the Member for Ontario. There was $150 million set aside in the Budget for the Youth Opportunities Program. First, could the Minister tell us how that money is to be spent and how much is to go into Career Access? Second, will he tell us if he intends to put the $90 million left over from the SEIP slush fund into Career Access, which now only has a total budget of $300 million?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is that proposals are being prepared for Cabinet consideration on the $150 million that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, provided to augment the Youth Opportunity Fund, bringing it to an over-all total of $1.3 billion. The Cabinet documents for the distribution of those funds are being prepared now, but Cabinet has not yet considered them. Therefore, I cannot give an indication to the Hon. Member of how those funds will be allocated.
The answer to the second part of the Hon. Member's question is, no, I do not intend to make the transfer out of the Special Employment Initiatives Program that he has recommended. I have received recommendations for a large number of projects, many of them coming from Members of the Opposition, which can legitimately be considered within that program.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: 
Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that the situation is monitored on a daily basis. I receive a daily report from our marketing directorate. I do not think it is conducive to the public interest to give a full, detailed report of the situation.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I think you will regret that one.


Pierre De Bané: I do not think if you really have the interest- obviously you are not from a fishing area, Mr. Deans-


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Minister please address the Chair?


Pierre De Bané: Today I had the Davis Report. All of the reports we have show that no buyer has cancelled any contract. On the other hand, because my hon. friend has a very important role as official spokesman for his Party on fisheries, I can arrange for him to have on a confidential basis a detailed report of the situation by my Department's officials. I do not think it is conducive every day in the House to say that we spoke to Mr. So-and-So in this or that company. We can give the Hon. Member a detailed report on the situation of each company. I am sure he is as dedicated as I am to the well-being of our fishermen and our fishing industry. I do not think it is proper for the Minister to give a report every day of where it is at.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister for that answer. But in light of the information that has been conveyed to me, it is obvious that his own staff are not giving him the correct facts on this issue. I will accept a briefing.


NEWFOUNDLAND FISHING INDUSTRY
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have a short supplementary question for the Minister. Since the restructuring of the Newfoundland fishing industry is simply not working, it has done nothing to date to help the 40,000-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With respect to the hon. Member, this is hardly a supplementary to his original question. The Chair recognized him, bearing in mind we have gone beyond the normal hour for Question Period. If the Hon. Member has a supplementary question, could it please be short?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The sealers now have no income in Newfoundland, which is directly related to the first question. What does the Minister intend to do to assist not only those fishermen, but those in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince Edward Island? These are independent companies that are being threatened by the situation at the present time.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I do recognize the great interest of my friend in
Order Paper Questions
the situation. I reiterate to him my offer to give him a full briefing of the situation as of today. We can keep both the Hon. Member for South Shore and the spokesman for the New Democratic Party informed on a confidential daily basis, if they want. I think we would be shooting ourselves in the foot if we echo daily every piece of information that appears in the press. I can tell the Hon. Member that several companies have reported increased sales to me. However, I reiterate my offer because I know my hon. friend is a very responsible spokesman.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition given to me by mothers and children from Ontario and other parts of Canada to the Honourable the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that our Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that at this critical period in a new cycle of nuclear weapons which could be unverifiable, Canada must give strong support to those parties in European governments who are refusing to accept the Cruise and Pershing missiles.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the Parliament of Canada to cancel any agreements for testing US nuclear devices or their delivery systems.
And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
* *
*


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
March 16, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 293, 294, 448, 474, 518 and 542.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 4,706 of the First Session of the 32nd Parliament, in relation to Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A. and Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A. (a) on what date was each acquired by Petro-Canada, from whom, at what cost and for what reason (b) for what reason are the Corporations "inactive"?
2.	Are G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd., Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd., and Petro-Canada (Norway) A/S in any way associated with Petro-Canada and, if so (a) what is that relationship in each instance (b) for what reason is Petro-Canada unable to provide the information requested in question No. 4,706 (c) how can the information be obtained and on what date will that information be available?
3.	In respect of Merit Oil Co. Ltd. (a) what was that Company's relationship to Petro-Canada prior to October 1, 1981 (b) what was the extent of Petro-Canada's interest in that Company prior to October 1, 1981 (c) for what reason was the relationship changed and what happened to Petro-Canada's interest in the Company (d) into what form was the Company changed and at whose instance?
4.	In respect of Pacific Petroleums Inc. (a) what was that Company's relationship to Petro-Canada prior to April 8, 1982 (b) what was the extent of Petro-Canada's interest in that Company prior to April 8, 1982 (c) for what reason was the relationship changed and what happened to Petro-Canada's interest in the Company (d) into what form was the Company changed and at whose instance?


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
1.	(a) Venezuelan Canadian Oils, C.A. and Venezuelan Pacific Petroleums, C.A. were both acquired by Petro-Canada as part of its purchase of Pacific Petroleums Ltd. in April, 1979. The cost of acquiring these two subsidiaries was subsumed in the aggregate cost of acquiring Pacific Petroleums Ltd., i.e. $1,496,389,000 and the reason was because these subsidiaries constituted parts of a larger purchase.
(b) These subsidiaries have been "inactive" since their purchase by Petro-Canada.
2.	Yes. (a) G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd. and Petro-Canada Norway A/S are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Petro-Canada Inc. which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada. G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd. has recently disposed of its assets and is now inactive. Petro-Canada Norway A/S is active. Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd. is a holding company acquired in the takeover by Petro-Canada of Pacific Petroleums Ltd.; it was formed to hold permits in the North Sea but has never been activated.
2. (b) and (c)
Date of last
Company	Board meeting
G.M.I. Co. (Bahamas) Ltd.	February 25, 1982
Pacific Petroleums (Overseas) Ltd.	January 4, 1977
Petro-Canada Norway A/S	September 6, 1983
3.	(a) and (b) Prior to October 1, 1981, Merit Oil Co. Ltd. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. (since renamed Petro-Canada Inc.).
(c) and (d) At the direction of Petro-Canada Exploration Inc., the assets of Merit Oil Co. Ltd. were transferred and Merit Oil Co. Ltd. was dissolved.
4.	(a) and (d) Prior to April 8, 1982, Pacific Petroleums Inc. was a wholly-owned subsidiary of Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. (since renamed Petro-Canada Inc.).
(c) and (d) An offer to purchase Pacific Petroleums Inc. was received by Petro-Canada Exploration Inc. and accepted. On April 8, 1982, Pacific Petroleums Inc. was sold to Zapata Exploration Company.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): With reference to the revised answer to question No. 4,751 of the First Session of the 32nd Parliament, on the subject of the BP reidentification program (a) what amount constitutes "a standard agency commission" (b) apart from insertion and design costs, what costs were incurred in running the "series of advertisements designed to inform the public of the BP reidentification program"?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Petro-Canada reports as follows:
(a)	The requested information is proprietary to Petro-Canada.
(b)	Apart from insertion costs of $483,845.74 and production and design costs of $25,116.96, which amounts included the standard agency commission, no other costs were incurred.
The figures provided in the revised reply to question No. 4,751 of the First Session, 32nd Parliament answered September 23, 1983 were cost estimates whereas the above-mentioned figures are actual costs.


Mr. Howie: Does the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have any plans for the replacement or acquisition of new seagoing vessels in the calendar year 1984 and, if so, what are they?


Pierre De Bané: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) intends to continue with the orderly replacement and acquisition of new seagoing vessels in 1984. The program includes the five vessels currently under construction, two of which are expected to enter service this year. In addition in 1984 DFO intends to: (a) start the conversion of a large stern trawler into a fisheries research vessel; (b) acquire approximately 25 launches and small craft; and, (c) initiate contracts for the design of four new vessels and the mid-life refit of two vessels.
March 16, 1984


Mr. Howie: What is the contemplated completion date of the Royal Commission Inquiry into the loss of the Ocean Ranger and what is the estimated cost of the inquiry?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: The contemplated completion date of Part I of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the loss of the Ocean Ranger dealing with causes of the loss is June 30, 1984.
The contemplated completion date of Part II of the Inquiry into related safety and other matters connected with eastern offshore drilling is the spring of 1985.
The estimated cost of the whole Inquiry is $13,500,000.


Mr. Howie: Since January 1, 1983, did the Department of the Environment announce any grants, contributions or assistance for the Chatham-Newcastle area in New Brunswick and, if so, what grants, contributions or assistance was announced?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: No.


Mr. Howie: As of the last date for which information was available, what proportion of the employees of the Department of the Environment were women?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: There are 28.25 per cent.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point with respect to the performance which the Parliamentary Secretary indicated yesterday was a very successful performance with regard to the answering of questions. I have put a series of questions on the Order Paper which do not require intensive investigation or research. Indeed, I have received responses from one Ministry that I recall, Revenue Canada, which is preoccupied with other things these days. That Department had the ability to respond to the question concerning names, titles, and positions of all exempt staff for the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary will know that I have a series of questions on the Order Paper relating to each Ministry of the Crown.
Security Intelligence Service
First, I am anxious to find out about the staff each Minister has. It is important for us to know this to make sure Ministers are attending to their duties. Second, I want to find out in each of those instances whether they receive any income, financial assistance, or benefit other than the designated money available for payment of exempt staff. These are important matters in terms of the Cabinet of the country and they should be answered immediately.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary give me some indication of how soon we might expect answers to these very important questions? There have been abuses with respect to Crown corporations such as Petro-Canada giving exempt staff of the Minister of Energy interest-free loans with respect to residences. I just want to ensure that there is a clean ship as far as the Government is concerned.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly look into those questions. We will have an answer for the Hon. member as soon as humanly possible. However, I would like to add that I have not heard of any cases where the privileges of exempt staff of Ministers were abused. I think the case mentioned by the Hon. Member was in fact an example of executive interchange, if I am not mistaken.


Mr. Nielsen:: Nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to defend Bill C-9, which is aimed at establishing the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. My views are based on evidence collected over the last fifteen years. On the basis of this evidence, I believe that it is absolutely necessary to create a civilian security and control system. Two Commis-

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
sions of Inquiry, the Mackenzie Commission in 1968 and the McDonald Commission in 1977, reached the same conclusion, namely, that the nature of policy operations is not the same as that of security operations. In other words, law enforcement and the duties of a security service are two distinct activities between which there is no comparison and which definitely require totally independent structures. Years of discussion and debate have made it clear that we must give the responsibility for collecting intelligence to an organization other than the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That is the purpose of the Bill now being considered in the House on second reading. With this Bill, we want to give Canadian citizens the assurance that their individual rights and freedoms will be respected. It puts an end to the status quo and breaks with the uncertainties of the past and those of our present security intelligence system which has no framework, no public mandate, no judicial control and no independent or external review mechanism. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it has none of the controls that are essential to protect our society's rights and freedoms.
Breaking with the old formula was not easy, and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), who had to take up this challenge, did so with great skill. The Bill we are being asked to approve is aimed at establishing a civilian intelligence service, and the responsibilities of this service were defined to take into account those aspects that are fundamental to the concept of a security service under a democratic system of Government.
Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, a security service must maintain a delicate balance between the security of the State and the protection of democratic values; between the legitimacy of certain State secrets and the public's right to information; between the principle of ministerial responsibility and that of an autonomous service, free from all partisan considerations; and between the need for an efficient service and respect for the rule of law. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that with so many factors to be considered, any attempt to establish a civilian security service becomes a very complex undertaking. Furthermore, individual perceptions of the ideal balance between these multiple factors tend to differ. However, after many consultations, after listening to advice and seeking a consensus, the Solicitor General has come up with an end product that is more than satisfactory. Bill C-9 strikes a balance between democratic principles and the security of the State.
For instance, Mr. Speaker, at the present time, only the Solicitor General is fully responsible for security services. He is the only person outside the service who is kept fully informed of the service's activities. The secrecy that such activities necessarily entail prevent him, of course, from giving complete answers to Parliament, and owing to the confidential nature of security activities, often Parliament is not informed.
However, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 will considerably improve the situation. Under the new legislation, judges and not the Solicitor General will issue warrants allowing the service to
exercise intrusive powers, and these warrants will be issued on the same basis as warrants issued today under the Criminal Code to authorize electronic surveillance.
Mr. Speaker, the inevitable result will be greater objectivity. After all, judges are not directly concerned by the success of an operation. Furthermore, every application for a warrant must first be approved by the Solicitor General, which means that as in the past, the Solicitor General will be accountable for the activities of his Department.
The new legislation provides further guarantees. There will be an external Security Intelligence Review Committee made up of Canadian citizens.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is the result of hard work and sustained efforts, and I support it without reservations. That is why I move, seconded by the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans);
That the question now be put.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I am really rather appalled at this procedural manipulation of the House. I want to point out that the Hon. Member who has just sat down is only the third member of the Government benches who has spoken in the whole length and breadth of this terribly important debate about a matter which could affect the civil liberties and security of every citizen of the country. This is merely a procedural manipulation, a half-hearted-and I could use another word-procedure by government Members which will rebound on them completely. If they want to gag the House and rush this Bill through the House, what they are doing is opening up the possibility that every single Member, whether or not he has spoken before in this debate, can now rise again in his place. I would suggest to the Hon. Member and to the Government House Leader, who was obviously behind this rather stupid move, that, if anything, it will delay the passage of this measure through the House.
For instance, one of the main principles missing from this particular Bill, on which I will not speak too long today, is the one about ensuring that employees and operatives of this new agency obey, and strictly obey, the rule of law. I do not intend to talk about that particular absence in the Bill even though it is a terribly important one, simply because some of my colleagues have already spoken about it and there will now be opportunities for them to speak again about it.
There are other measures which are terribly absent from the Bill which should protect and concern us all. One that has not been referred to by any Hon. Member yet-and I want to speak about it in the very limited time I have available to me today-is the terrible lack of control and monitoring in regard to electronic eavesdropping in the country at the moment, and
March 16, 1984

as certainly would be the case if the Bill were passed in its present form.
I am not contravening my oath of office in indicating some of these concerns. I am not contravening the Official Secrets Act in publicizing some of the things I want to publicize in the House today. Anything I intend to say here today has already been published in Canada by others. I am prepared to back it up by showing anyone the articles, stories or books which are source material for the argument I am making today.
First let me indicate the extent of the problem. To eavesdrop on any person in this country, in any place at any time, no physical intrusion or trespass is necessary. The technology exists, for example, for anyone in the American Embassy on Wellington Street to eavesdrop on conversations taking place in offices in these Parliament Buildings, or vice-versa. One can buy a microphone on the electronic market here in Canada today that is smaller than a 25-cent piece but which can hear whispers through walls almost two miles away. In the early 1960s the Americans were able to listen to Krushchev having a conversation in a limousine by means of a satellite rebroadcast in space. Aimed parabolic microphones can pick up quite clearly conversations taking place ten miles away. Laser devices can be aimed at windows or even walls and can rebroadcast conversations by reproducing those conversations from the smallest measurable vibrations on those flat surfaces. Hundreds of sophisticated tape recorders are turning right now in Canada, recording conversations that have been activated by the use of certain code words or phrases which automatically turn them on.
The eavesdropping of conversations is one of the major and most efficient tools being used today in the battle against crime and the gathering of information of all sorts, both by public agencies and, I suspect, by private organizations. Internally, domestically here in Canada this industry is supposed to be controlled either by judicial warrant for criminal investigation or ministerial warrant for security investigations, or prohibited by law for private or personal use.
I suspect, although I have no proof, that accountable, effective control, supervision or prohibition, as the case may be, is largely illusory in this country. There is simply too much of it going on both within and without the Government. In this Bill, the authorization process for security targeting is moved from the Minister's office to the courtroom. A few monitoring or auditing group will have new inspection powers if they know, can find and put realistic controls and auditing practices on the use of the facilities. Obviously, I remain pretty skeptical but I am willing to see how it works out.
I am concerned that there is still at least one very large gap in this whole process over which neither the Minister nor this Bill seems to envisage any accountable control in any way whatsoever. The impression the Minister attempts to convey is that this Bill, in conjunction with Part IV of the Criminal Code which deals with criminal investigation, specifies that henceforth all legal authorizations for third party eavesdrop-
Security Intelligence Service
ping or the obtaining of information by electronic or other means will have to be judicially authorized. That quite definitely, quite seriously and quite dangerously is totally wrong.
We have a so-called ultra-secret agency in this country that quite closely works with, feeds into and extracts from both the huge National Security Agency's sprawling facilities and the computer complex in Fort George Mead in Maryland, Washington, and also the large listening and cryptological centre in the United Kindgom that has been in the news lately because of certain spy and union problems.
Canada's agency is mainly operational here in the Ottawa area and is called the Communications Security Agency, the CSE. I am willing to bet that most Members of Parliament here in the House today, and I surmise even some Cabinet Ministers, have never heard of the CSE. In the scheme of things, it is located under the jurisdiction of the Department of National Defence, although it is never listed in the Estimates, never mentioned in any budgetary item in this House or any of its committees and rarely appears on departmental organizational charts. I am also willing to bet that even some Ministers of National Defence have never heard of it.
The purpose of the three or more nation group is to monitor all telephone, telegraph, telex, microwave, or radio emission signals or messages anywhere in the world or in space, and they do it. Sensitive radio receivers tap microwave and satellite transmissions of telephone conversations, for instance, while a computer equipped with limited speech recognition capability quickly filters through thousands of tapes and intercepts by seizing on key words. It would not take too much imagination to believe that four triggering words would be "diplomat, terrorist, bomb" and "explosion". I leave it to Members to think of some of the other trigger words.
Decoding devices and unscrambling gear are obviously an integral part of its facilities. These agencies, Canada's included, obviously not only listen to international wave lengths. By their nature, they have the potential to listen in to everything and anything that hits the airwaves and more, both outside and inside Canada. Computer data banking information is fed by telephone facilities. Telephonic communications are carried on by microwave. Microwaves are intercepted by this agency.
I am not arguing that these facilities for both security and economic purposes are not necessary or useful. I am arguing that this Bill does not seem to recognize either that ministerial knowledge or judicial approval that is designed to lull us into the comfortable belief that all is well and being controlled, authorized and monitored.
There is a terrible potential for abuse in the CSE and its allied and international agencies in other countries. They can, and I am convinced they do, listen in, break into, decodify and store conversations of people in this country with no independent control, supervision or monitoring.
In conclusion, may I say that at a time when more and more personal, private, governmental and commercial communication and transmission is being handled through the airwaves, including easy access to data banks, it is simply appalling that

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
this Bill, which is designed to allay our fears respecting some elements of personal privacy and civil liberties and at the same time provide an efficient framework for our protection from foreign influences, both hostile and friendly, ignores this rapidly expanding capability. Part II of this Bill facetiously labelled "Judicial Control" is a fraud. I for one will not vote for legislation that is so seriously flawed.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an oportunity to participate in the debate and to oppose Bill C-9. I am a little surprised at the motion of the Liberal Member that the question be now put. Knowing him a little bit, I know that he knows full well what it means. What it means is that Members on this side of the House, on behalf of our constituents and all Canadians, now do not have the opportunity to put forward amendments. We could allow Canadians to have some understanding of what are the major flaws of this Bill by debating them. What effectively happens now is that the Liberal member, after only three Liberal members have spoken on this important legislation, has put a gag order on the House so that the debate will gradually run out by allowing us only 10 minutes to speak. This is a gag being placed on parliamentarians who would either want to move amendments themselves or participate at some greater length in an important debate relating to security service legislation.
Be that as it may, the Hon. Member says that he is a soldier. I am sure that the gun was held to his head by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) or someone else in order to force him to move such a motion. However, there are three key elements in this legislation which must be scrutinized carefully. Canadians can be certain that this Party at least will fight here in the House, in committee and, if the legislation comes back to the House, again in the House to make sure that changes are made to the legislation or that it is blocked. Those three key areas to which I refer are the proposed mandate, the powers which are to be granted to the security service and the oversight, an area which I would have expected the Solicitor General to be more supportive of. However, he is apparently not.
Let me give a very brief history of this legislation, Mr. Speaker. I think I am the only peace officer in the House and the only person who is not a lawyer who has worked within the criminal justice system. Therefore, I have some idea of the larger venue of crime, and here I am thinking of international crimes such as smuggling and heroin importing. I have been involved in such trials and have some idea of the deficiencies found by the RCMP in terms of dealing with that kind of international crime. I am aware that there is some need for the expansion of a service to help with those deficiencies.
I was present in the House one day when the Solicitor General was berating members of the Official Opposition for not allowing this legislation to move quickly so that the Pope could be protected while he is in Canada. I do not think that that kind of fear-mongering is necessary, proper or realistic for
the Solicitor General to be presenting to the Canadian public as a reason why this kind of legislation should be rushed through. Quite clearly, our traditional police forces in the country should be capable, one would hope, of protecting the Pope and others while in Canada. This security service is being proposed for quite another reason, as I think I will be able to reveal as I deal with Bill C-9 as it exists even with minor changes from the previous Bill C-157.
In 1976, it was revealed that the RCMP security service had been involved in a number of criminal wrongdoings in the Province of Quebec. We have been looking at security service matters in one way or another since 1969 with the Mackenzie Commission. However, in 1977, the McDonald Commission of Inquiry was established, one of the most expensive and long standing royal commissions Canada has ever seen. The McDonald Commission sat until 1980 and held hearings across Canada looking into security-related matters. Mr. Justice David McDonald and his commission found that there had been widespread institutional lawbreaking by members of the Canadian security service.
One of the things which I think is very germane to this debate is that to this time, no RCMP security service officers or members have been prosecuted for illegalities outside of the Province of Quebec since the revelations of the McDonald inquiry. I think that that fact really leads into this debate and shows why members of the Official Opposition will have to struggle even harder to ensure that the civil liberties of Canadians are protected. Those liberties were not protected even when the Government across the floor knew and had all of the evidence to show that federal statutes had been broken. No actions were taken. The Solicitor General has indicated that certain actions were taken against individual members, but what was really done has never been revealed either to us as Members of the House or to the general public.
At the foundation of what I have just said is the simple fact that the Canadian judicial system was subverted by the actions taken in the past by the RCMP security service. It is our responsibility as legislators to protect Canadians. The Solicitor General might think that he is the only legislator but my constituents expect me to ensure that legislation is passed in this House which protects their interests as well as the interests of the country as a whole.
Following the rejection of Bill C-157 not only by this Party but by most of the Attorneys General, by civil libertarians, academics, editorialists and a broad section of the Canadian public, the Solicitor General decided to send the Bill to the Senate and have Mr. Pitfield, who had been involved in this matter before, rewrite the Bill a bit. It is interesting to note that when Bill C-157 was introduced, the only Party in the House that publicly opposed the content of Bill C-157 was this Party. The public record will prove that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Nonsense.


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member says that that is nonsense. However, the public record has been checked and it has been discovered that the only person to my right who had anything
March 16, 1984

to say about this Bill was Elmer Mackay, the former Member for Central Nova. He is now the senior policy adviser to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). At that time he said that there were too many civil liberty safeguards in Bill C-157, exactly the opposite of what the Tories are trying to say now. However, that was the only public statement that was made at the time Bill C-157 was introduced.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Where were you? Were you at the Senate committee meetings?


James Ross Fulton: The Hon. Member asks me why I was not present. I am the environment critic for my Party and I have never once seen him or most of the Tory members at Fisheries and Forestry Committee meetings where I happen to be active.
The facts show pretty clearly where the Tories really stand in terms of this legislation. While the Pitfield committee was studying this legislation in the other place, all but one or two of the clauses that are now contained within Bill C-9 were unanimously endorsed by members of the Conservative Party.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Nonsense.


James Ross Fulton: Again they are trying to sit on both sides of the fence. All one needs to do is look at the number of speakers they have put up to discuss this Bill to date in terms of the number of speakers they are allowed to put up. We can see pretty quickly and accurately the position of Tory members. They support this legislation in the Senate and in certain circles. They pretend to debate against it in the House and yet, when the original legislation was introduced, all they said was that there were too many safeguards in the Bill, exactly the opposite of what was being said by provincial Tory Attorneys General across the country.
Three major parts of this Bill seriously jeopardize individual civil liberties in Canada and are not required in terms of the national security of the country. They are contained within the proposed mandate. Let us look at that mandate and see exactly what it means. The mandate is found in Clause 2 under the definition of threats to the security of Canada. Although some people who have looked very carefully at this definition feel that it has been somewhat improved by the Pitfield committee, it is still far too broad and even falls short of the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. Even the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, Mr. McMurtry, has said that the mandate is dangerously vague. For example, Canadians who might be interested in sending funds to Nicaragua or to the Afghan rebels or who wish to be involved in any kind of activity outside of Canada may well find that their entire organization, be it a church or local community organization, could fall under the intrusive techniques of Bill C-9.
I have two more very brief points to make, Mr. Speaker. One point is related to the powers contained within this Bill. There is a complete absence of political accountability for both the legislation and the RCMP. The most important oversight, Mr. Speaker, is that the proposal put forward by the Solicitor General does not allow for parliamentary scrutiny even by a parliamentary commitee. This would mean that those individu-
Security Intelligence Service
als who are democratically elected in the country and belong to the NDP, the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party and who represent all Canadians are being precluded from this committee. As the Solicitor General well knows, even the proposal that he has put forward, which is terribly flawed and will not protect civil liberties of Canadians, does not allow this little Privy Council group or the Inspector General to have access to the political documents given to it by Cabinet. Again, Mr. Speaker, it is terribly flawed legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have waited for some considerable length of time for an opportunity to discuss Bill C-9 in some detail. The Government has had the opportunity to concern itself with the security service and subject it to close examination and scrutiny for 15 years, but today it attempts to limit the consideration that the Bill deserves.
The issues before us are complex. The Government tries to draw a fine line between the security service, whose responsibility is the protection of the state, while on the other hand it says that we as a democratic nation are concerned with the rights and freedoms of each individual. We are travelling a fine line indeed, Mr. Speaker.
In 1969 the Mackenzie Comission recommended a separate security force. This brought before the Government the question of the "civilianization", as it were, of that security force. The result of the abuses that took place was the establishment of the McDonald Commission and the recommendation, like that of its predecessor, for the separation of the security service from the RCMP. Two years after receipt of that report the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) introduced Bill C-157. All Members of the House are aware of the controversy brought on by that Bill. Protest letters poured in from every imaginable group. With one legislative swoop the Solicitor General managed to offend just about every segment of the country. Too many people were afraid that Canada was to get its very own KGB.
There is a limit, however. A bad piece of legislation cannot be protected forever. Bill C-157 was referred to a Senate committee for study. Time does not permit me to go into the recommendations of the Senate committee, Mr. Speaker. In general, however, the senators were unanimous in their castigation of the provisions of Bill C-157.
After considering the recommendations, the Solicitor General and Senator Pitfield urge early passage in order to prove that the parliamentary process works. What would the result have been if we had been under the same pressure with respect to Bill C-157, Mr. Speaker? Senator Pitfield might be satisfied with Bill C-9, but we certainly are not.
Our concerns lie in three general areas, Mr. Speaker. First, the mandate given to a civilian security service; second, the powers granted to the intelligence service; and third, the accountability that goes with the necessary protection of a

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
democracy and through Parliament to the people of the country.
A civilian security service-any security service for that matter-holds a high degree of potential for abuse. If we are serious about rights and freedoms in Canada, it is paramount that all Canadians have a very clear understanding of what this proposed Security Intelligence Service is established to do. Bill C-9 is anything but clear on this. For example, the service is to collect, analyse and retain information and intelligence respecting activities which are suspected of constituting a threat to the security of the nation. Canadians are entitled to know what constitutes a threat under this Bill. That concept of a threat to the security of Canada is given a stretched definition indeed, far beyond that which any reasonable Canadian would expect to be necessary.
Will files be taken out on Canadians who support Solidarity, the Sandinistas or the Afhgan rebels? We hope not; it is part of our way of life to express our opinions without presenting any kind of threat to the security of the nation.
More could be said about the mandate, Mr. Speaker, but I want to move on to the broad powers the Act gives to the security service. Quite frankly, those powers are enormous. Once the service obtains a warrant for inclusive surveillance, the individual under suspicion would lose virtually every shred of his or her right to privacy. That person's life would become an open book and subject to scrutiny. His mail would be subject to scrutiny, confidential files could be examined as well as phychiatric reports and income tax returns. What is left of individual rights and freedoms? Wiretapping and eavesdropping are considered fair game.
My final primary concern is the accountability aspect, Mr. Speaker. Accountability is absolutely essential. Canadians learned this lesson well in the 1970s when no one, not even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or the Solicitor General of the day, would accept any responsibility for security breaches which took place at that time.
It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary democracy that the buck has to stop somewhere. Bill C-9 allows that proverbial buck to waft in the breeze. Neither the Inspector General nor any review committee envisaged in Bill C-9 would have access to Cabinet documents. Those who concerned themselves with the Freedom of Information Act know how quickly and how well materials can be marked "confidential" or "Cabinet document" and buried, at least for our time.
The Government has had 15 years to consider this legislation. The Canadian people now deserve a fair opportunity to scrutinize Bill C-9 and to offer their recommendations and amendments. We in this Party intend to give Canadians that opportunity.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would have preferred to speak on Bill C-9 without the rather silly and irresponsible action that was taken by a Member on the Liberal side a few moments ago when he and his colleagues denied the House the right to put forward any reasoned amendments. Notice was certainly given of at least one
such amendment from the critic in this Party. It ill behooves a responsible Minister and his colleagues to take that kind of action regarding a matter as delicate, in terms of basic civil liberties, as would be any law which intended to broaden the scope of police or investigative powers within a democratic society.
Henry Ward Beecher once said that "laws are not masters but servants". We would do well to remember that, Mr. Speaker. Whatever agency in Canada is to be responsible for our national security and any investigations in pursuance thereof should take that saying very much to heart.
At the Strasbourg Conference on Parliamentary Democracy last year I had the opportunity to contribute to the debate in the European Parliament and to stress what I thought were some of the dangers that were increasingly evident throughout much of the world, particularly on the subject of the new and sophisticated communications technology which is available. I emphasized, of course, some of the benefits and pluses which this new technology can afford in terms of democratic government and general progress. However, I went on to point out some dangers and I would like to quote from my remarks at that conference because I feel they are very appropriate to the Bill before us. I quote:
But the same technology that can allow for this option can also be used to centralize control and centralize authority and power a la the Orwellian nightmare society of 1984. I do not think that it is necessary to remind everyone that 1984 is next year. But that nightmare society envisaged by George Orwell is now very much a technical and physical possibility and is one of the threats against which we must guard. Because the power to keep populations under close surveillance is here, as was illustrated at some length in the pages of that important work, we must guard more than ever against the legalization of hitherto illegal though uncommon surveillance practices for security and other reasons. It may-indeed-be preferable to recognize that, from time to time, law enforcement agencies may, in pursuance of their mandates, circumvent or go beyond the law. At least if the perpetrators of excesses are caught, they risk being penalized or prosecuted. But it may be preferable to go that route rather than to brutalize the law itself, because if previously criminal or illegal acts are made legal, their common use will undoubtedly be extended and become the norm rather than the exception, and we go on from there until 1984 will indeed be with us.
While electronic surveillance .. . may be necessary from time to time, especially when so much information and currency is transacted electronically-thus eliminating physical evidence of its use or transmission, it may be preferable to ignore investigative excesses from time to time rather than to codify and legitimize them and thus guarantee their use and encourage excesses that go beyond them.
What I am suggesting, Mr. Speaker, and it is my own opinion, is that sometimes it is better to lift the telescope to your blind eye. You cannot make a constant practice of it, but as I said at the conference last year, it is preferable to brutalizing the law and encouraging regular use of mechanisms which up until now have been illegal. It is better to have a silent understanding that from time to time you look the other way, if excessive methods are required in terms of some imminent danger, rather than to brutalize and corrupt the whole process of liberty as we have come to know it.
March 16, 1984

There is another saying, which 1 would like to make note of here, by Doctor Harry Emerson Fosdick: "Liberty is always dangerous, but it is the safest thing we have".
There are three major areas in this Bill: the proposed mandate for the service, the powers which are suggested for it, and the oversight and accountability mechanisms. In terms of the mandate of the service itself, it is again, I regret, not to receive adequate attention due to the action of the government in refusing to allow this House to consider any reasonable amendments.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why not move them in committee?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Largely, Mr. Speaker, because this place is more appropriate for matters as fundamental to the institution of liberty itself, as is this Bill and the ideas encompassed in it. They are of overriding importance and deserve, because of the nature and type of laws we are discussing, to be discussed openly in the highest court of this land-


Mr. Blais:: What is a committee, then? It is open. It is a committee of the House.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: -and that is what this House of Commons is. What is the Government afraid of?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We are afraid that the Bill will never move forward.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: The mandate of the proposed security service is found in Section 2 in the definition "threats to the security of Canada". The definition, although improved by the Pitfield committee, is still far too broad and falls short of the recommendations even of the McDonald Commission. It has recently been denounced by the Ontario Attorney General as being dangerously vague. Canadians who have broken no law whatever but fall within its scope could still be subject to all intrusive techniques of the security service. For example, the church group which sends funds to the African National Congress to support liberation work in Africa, or to a Central American liberation movement, could be targeted and all of its members subjected to the powers of the new agency.
I know that the Minister has said that no one will be subject to investigation unless they are, in fact, going beyond what the law allows. However, we must design laws not only for normal times but for abnormal times. All we have to do is look back to the Prime Minister's "whiff of grapeshot" in 1970 to see what can happen in a society when something other than the normal circumstances prevail. In such times, people and governments panic and do things which in the normal course of events they would never even consider. Our laws have to be designed to deal with the important matter of protection of our liberties, taking into consideration the fact that these laws must serve us and serve the cause of liberty in abnormal as well as in normal times.
In those kinds of times when some event evokes strong emotions, suspicions are rife and people feel insecure. With the kind of easy access to hitherto illegal surveillance made possi-
Security Intelligence Service
ble by this Bill, can the Minister say that groups who do not at any time go beyond the pale of the law are not going to be investigated? The security service, as a matter of course, will want to find out whether suspected persons are, in fact, counselling or acting within the law, or in breach of the law in a manner which is unacceptable to the Government under its mandate. If these kinds of powers are easily available to it, any security investigative agency is going to check into all kinds of legitimate organizations, as security agencies have done many times in the republic to the south of us. Even without these permissive threats to liberty which are contained in this Bill, we know what our own security agencies in Canada have done prior to this time.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I regret the decision of the Government to rush this matter through and so to try to prevent the House itself from dealing directly with possible amendments-of which there has been notice given-because this issue is basically fundamental to the rights and freedoms of the people of Canada.


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much the action of the representative of the Liberal Party in trying to terminate this debate. People have waited for a great many years to have this matter come up for public examination. It now seems that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) will do anything he can to prevent effective public examination. He says, of course, that the Bill should be brought into committee where it can be discussed. However, we all know what a Liberal majority can do under his direction in committee. It can run it through fast, run it through the House again, and no doubt that is his intention, so that it will be out and into law before the election, at which time they hope that people will forget about it, either during the leadership race or at election time.
It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, to do whatever we can within the law to make sure that this Bill is not rushed through without public consideration. Public consideration does not just mean debate within this House. It means that the central issues, the central faults in this Bill, should be recognized by the public.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, that it is now one o'clock. [Translation]


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying before lunch, this Bill is so flawed that the Solicitor General clearly wants to run it through as quickly as he can before the public recognizes

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
that the essential faults which aroused so much opposition to Bill C-157 are still here.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 just wanted you to have two chances to speak.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It is not quite so extreme, but essentially as bad. Clearly the Minister has no intention, even in committee, of considering any serious amendments on the matter of the mandate, which is far too vague; on the matter of the broad powers, which are far too broad-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You can move amendments.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: -or on the matter of the lack of proper parliamentary review. That is why his disingenuous plea that we send the Bill to committee to be discussed has to be turned down. Once we approve it in principle on second reading, then there is no possibility of stopping the Minister from ramming it all the way through.
On the matter of the mandate, Mr. Speaker, the point is simply that this Bill legitimizes what previously was perhaps unclear or possibly illegal; that is to say, the suppression of dissent, of legitimate criticism and legitimate organized opposition to Government policies. It is legitimate in that it does not involve any action or intention of violent overthrow or illegal subversion. Nevertheless, the experience of the last several decades shows that the present conduct of the RCMP, which will be no different in whatever civilian service replaces the RCMP, has been to use the Public Service to suppress dissent against a government, to suppress opposition.
One example of this, Mr. Speaker, is the widespread use of police photographers to film things like peace demonstrations. The most peaceful, even the smallest peace demonstration is subject to this kind of surveillance. We have the RCMP photographers there, in plain clothes but identifiable and sometimes acknowledging identification, taking pictures of everyone who goes on such a picket at the American Consulate, Queen's Park, City Hall or anywhere. That is a form of mild harassment which ought not to be used by the defenders of the law but is used regularly.
Another example is not so widely known but is much more intensive, and that is the harassment of individuals. I refer to the case of a student some 30 years ago who was registered as an ordinand in an Anglican college in Montreal. This student was actively engaged in a civil rights organization on McGill campus after a building had been padlocked by order of the then Premier of Quebec, Maurice Duplessis, under the infamous padlock law. This allowed him to padlock any building for a year on his say so because he thought it was being used for Bolshevik propaganda.
The city-wide protest against the padlocking of the United Jewish People's Organization hall because an Irish Roman Catholic priest had been allowed to speak about international peace was something that clearly the RCMP thought they had to suppress. So a student was harassed because he was active in a civil rights organization. The RCMP went to his teachers, the principal of his college, the dean of the Faculty of Divinity,
and it was made known through the grapevine that if he did not withdraw from that organization he would probably not be recommended for ordination. That is a contemptible abuse of the RCMP's power. Never did they allege this person had done anything wrong, let alone lay any charge or information against him. They merely said they have this man under surveillance and that was enough to intimidate the principal of the college. In turn, although it is regrettable, it was enough to intimidate the student into withdrawing from this organization.
There was also the case of a priest of the Anglican church who, when he moved to another diocese and took up secular work with the agreement of his bishop, found that within a few months the RCMP followed him to that diocese and made the same sort of dishonest insinuation to the man's employer and his bishop in the new diocese. In other words, they were attempting to undermine a person against whom they could make no accusation. This is the kind of dishonest trick which the RCMP has carried on in many cases.
I have given one example which I can document but I have heard of many others. This is the kind of thing which will now be legitimized by this Bill. This Bill will now give the appearance of legality to things like this. That is why this is a very destructive Bill. It will specifically allow, of course, the opening of first-class mail without the knowledge of the sender or recipient and without any possibility of any real control over it. It will specifically allow the infiltrating of groups for the purpose of disruption.
The final fault in this Bill is that there is simply no serious parliamentary review provided for. Members of Parliament are to be excluded from the opportunity of finding out what this service is doing, except such things as the service may choose to tell Members of Parliament. There will be no real opportunity to examine what is actually happening. Even the Mickey Mouse committee that is to be appointed will not have a real opportunity because the most vital documents can be and will be withheld from it. There will be no independent reporting on the doings of this secret service, this Canadian "Gestapo".


John (Moody) Roberts: That is shameful.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: What is also very unfortunate about this Bill is that it appears to provide for putting the Canadian security service under the control of a foreign power.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is a little difference between the RCMP and the Gestapo.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: There are the provisions of allowing the service to sign agreements with unnamed governments. In other words, it does not have to report to the people of Canada but it may very well report to some secret service agency of any other government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Does all of your caucus think that the RCMP is the Gestapo?
March 16, 1984


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: That is why this Bill is an affront to the liberties of Canadians. That is why the hyenas across the way are trying to drown out or suppress any opposition.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is against the rules to interrupt an Hon. Member who has the floor.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. When the RCMP are characterized as the Gestapo-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Minister please state his question of privilege?


Mr. Rossi:: Say that outside of the House and see what happens to you.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to enter a serious discussion of Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, when one members calls the RCMP the Gestapo and another tells him to step outside the House and the RCMP will descend upon him, in some vague fashion which he does not explain.


Carlo Rossi: That is not what I said.


Howard Edward Crosby: I do not know whether that confirms the status of the RCMP as the Gestapo or denies it, but it tells us how much serious consideration is given in the House of Commons by the government Party and the New Democratic Party to a very important issue like the establishment of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
I want to say that it is a legislative measure that gives me a lot of difficulty. I say that after a 25-year career in the administration of justice in Canada. That includes a ten-year career serving as a prosecutor and dealing on a day-to-day basis with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and another ten years dealing with the defence of criminal offenders charged under the laws of Canada.
Let me begin by saying that I stand firmly for the belief that anyone charged with a criminal offence in Canada has a full right to the opportunity to defend themselves. I believe in the principle that no one is guilty unless guilt is established before a legitimate court. We operate under the rule of law in this country. What is at stake in a legislative measure like that proposed by Bill C-9 is the rule of law in Canada. I want to state very clearly that if a new intelligence service will advance the protection of Canadians under the law, I am in favour of it. But if it is another opportunity to deprive Canadian citizens of their traditional rights under the law, then I am against it.
That is the problem we face. We do not know what kind of organization this is. If we could rely on the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) as the paternal authority in this case and as the father of this new intelligence service, if we could place implicit faith in his ability to develop an appropriate and responsible intelligence service, then we would not need to debate this Bill. However, the problem is that the Solicitor General and his colleagues in the Government have destroyed any possibility of that kind of faith in the administration of justice in this country. We must question whether the proposal
Security Intelligence Service
contained in Bill C-9 is legitimate and whether it is really for the benefit of Canada.
The basic principle at stake involves the question whether the RCMP, which has traditionally for decades dealt with all national police matters in this country, including internal security, should continue to perform that function or whether there should be a new organization. Quite frankly, based on present information and 25 years of experience in the administration of justice in Canada, I would suggest that we stick with the RCMP until we find for certain a better method of controlling security and all national police matters in Canada. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have developed a tradition over generations that can only be achieved with that kind of history. It has established itself over its long history as an effective police force, as upholders of the legal tradition. Indeed, the motto of the RCMP is to uphold the law. That means law in the broad sense, not just the Criminal Code or particular statutes, but the whole purpose of the law, namely, the reasonable control of private and personal activities in Canada.
If we reject that history and that tradition of fair play in law enforcement that has been established by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police over decades and generations of Canadians, then we must make absolutely certain that what we are substituting will at least uphold that same tradition and, because of the expenditure of public funds involved, presumably improve it.
I must ask the Solicitor General and his Cabinet colleagues what evidence there is to show that this will be the case. What indication is there that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service as proposed in this Bill will be able to accomplish anything, or at least provide an effective service in that area?
There is mention of judicial control in the Bill. Unless the organization has within its own body the essential controls and attitudinal positions that are necessary to protect Canadians from a super force, the judiciary and Parliament will be powerless. It will not be able to intervene effectively.
The injustices that occur in Canada do not come to our attention on the floor of the House of Commons. The injustices that occur in Canada take place on Dorchester Street in Montreal, Yonge Street in Toronto and Barrington Street in Halifax. We never hear of those injustices. That is what injustice is all about. Injustice is not evidenced in the courts of Canada, it is present on the streets of Canada on a day-to-day basis. Unless one is involved in something like legal aid or in the administration of justice in a practical way, one does not even know about it. Do not tell me that some kind of super force created within the legal system of Canada can be subsequently controlled.
In my view, the obligation of all Members of Parliament is to ensure that, before this potential vehicle of suppression is launched, we know exactly what we are creating. Since we do not know, we cannot take the responsibility for creating a security agency that is an unknown quantity, particularly in view of the fact that we presently have a national police force that has proven its worth and merit over a long period of time.

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
The Solicitor General may say that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do not want this function, that they think it should be isolated from normal police duties on a national basis and put into a separate organization. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is, who is running the country? Is it the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his colleagues? Or is it the Superintendent of the RCMP? I do not care if the Superintendent of the RCMP does not want to perform this function; that is totally irrelevant. Sure, he wants to get into functions that are more normal police work. He wants the personnel in his force to perform functions more normally related to police activity. But that is no answer.
It is our right and our duty to impose that responsibility on the RCMP whether they like it or not. If the present Commissioner of the RCMP does not want to head a security force, which is an institution, and does not want to take the responsibility for internal and international security in this country, then quite frankly he had better find something else to do because the people of Canada are relying, not on the Superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, but on the tradition built up over decades and generations to protect them in the way that they have always been protected. That is to establish a fair balance between the rights of citizens and the protection of citizens. That has been the function of the RCMP for decades and generations. That should continue to be the function of the RCMP, and that is the answer to this question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few words on the Bill before the House today. I come from rural Saskatchewan where the RCMP polices many of the communities and small towns, and there have been a lot of questions asked about this Bill.


John (Moody) Roberts: Would you compare them to the Gestapo, like your colleague?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have never compared them to the Gestapo, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I wonder if we could have a little bit of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is beginning to wonder whether the House would like to dispense with the services of the Chair. I appeal to all Hon. Members to respect the rules of debate. The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I think we need the protection of the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I got up to speak and all of a sudden I heard calls of "Gestapo". I do not know what that is about.


John (Moody) Roberts: Your colleague said that.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Maybe that is some new Liberalism from the new Liberal leadership candidate, I am not sure. Perhaps he can pursue this in the Question Period.
In any event, I was saying that the RCMP police many of the small towns in Saskatchewan. Their training headquarters is in our capital city of Regina. Many questions are being raised about the new Bill before us as to how it will affect the financing of the RCMP, its role and so on. That is why I am interested in seeing as much political accountability and as much debate as possible in this House as well as seeing a good hearing at the committee stage.
What we are dealing with is a very important topic in any democracy in terms of the policing or security of a democracy. When we look at the establishment of a security force in the RCMP or outside the RCMP, we have to strike a very important balance. That balance is between giving the force adequate powers to do a proper job for the security of the nation and the people, and not giving the police too much power where they actually go overboard in trying to fulfil their mandate. I think it is a crucial balance that we are trying to reach here. It has to be a balance, on the one hand, of protecting individual rights and liberties of the citizens at large, and dealing adequately with genuine threats to the national security of Canada. That is what we must look at.
There is some concern being expressed by groups such as the Canadian Civil Liberties Association whether or not under this Bill the Government is going overboard by giving too broad a mandate, too sweeping a mandate, to the new security service and there would be too little parliamentary accountability. I have a transcript from CTV's Question Period which was aired February 5, 1984. Mr. Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, was the guest. He was asked what he thought of the legislation that is now before Parliament. He said in part:
I think that the powers of intrusive surveillance are still needlessly broad. Under the terms of this Bill, as it is now formulated, Canadian citizens could have their conversations bugged, their mail opened, their homes surreptitiously searched, and their confidential records invaded, even though there isn't the slightest suggestion that any lawbreaking is involved.
He went on to say:
I think, at the very least, there should be a requirement that there be reasonable grounds to believe that there is a serious security-related breach of the law involved. I think, before they could get a warrant for any of those intrusive techniques against a citizen or a permanent resident, they should have to meet that kind of test.
In other words, the test of reasonable grounds. I am not a lawyer nor am I an expert in this area. I have immense respect for Alan Borovoy. I know he is respected on all sides of the House and by my friend, the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). I was thinking of Central Nova but I knew that was not the riding. I know she feels exactly the same way. Perhaps she is more impressive than the Hon. Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney) in terms of her contributions to debates in the House, and that is not very hard to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 16, 1984


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My main concern is whether by the creation of this new security service we are giving it a mandate that is too sweeping in terms of civil rights, freedoms and liberties. As I said before, I think it is a very delicate balance that we have to strike. From what I have read and from the contacts I have had with ordinary citizens, I feel that what is happening here is that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is giving too much power to this security service.
As I look around the House I still see a few Members who were here in October, 1970 when we had the October crisis. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was here, I was here, and the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) was here as well. My mind goes back some 13 and a half years to what happened in October, 1970. There have been some well documented facts that the RCMP and the public authorities went overboard in responding to the FLQ crisis in the Province of Quebec. Just look at the number of people who were arrested, people who were innocent and had absolutely nothing to do with subversion in this country or anything to do with violence. They were picked up and thrown in jail. Their rights were stripped away from them by the invocation of the War Measures Act at that time.
1 was one of the 16 Members of Parliament, along with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre, who stood up in this House and said no, that the Government should not invoke the War Measures Act. I think we were right. 1 think history has proved us right. I remember seeing an interview given by Robert Stanfield, who was the then Leader of the Opposition. He said that one of his major mistakes in public life was to support the invocation of the War Measures Act. I know at the time he was very bothered and caught up in the public fear and paranoia resulting from what we were being fed by the media and by the Government across the way. He said that was perhaps the most serious mistake he had made in public life. I have immense respect for Robert Stanfield, for his judgment and for his humanitarian feelings. I think what he was saying to us is that often in society we can get carried away if we give too much power to law enforcers or to a special force.
Having gone through that experience once, albeit in extraordinary circumstances or in extraordinary times, I do not want to take the risk as a person representing 70,000 Saskatchewan people of giving a too sweeping mandate or too sweeping scope of powers to a new security service. I cast my mind back to the days leading up to the McDonald Commission and its inquiry into the wrongdoings of the RCMP, to the barn burning by RCMP officers in the Province of Quebec and to other things which occurred at that particular time. Those kinds of issues which some of us in the House have experienced as parliamentarians make us extremely wary of giving a sweeping mandate to any security service.
1 say this for a number of reasons, one of which is that we do not have proper parliamentary scrutiny or accountability for what we will create in the Bill before the House today.
Security Intelligence Service
When it comes right down to it, the only person who will be responsible for ensuring that there is not an over-zealous application of the powers of the law will be the Solicitor General. That is not adequate in a parliamentary democracy; that is wrong. There should be much greater parliamentary accountability built into this legislation as well as into almost every Bill we pass in the House.
It is important that the security service not be there to stifle legitimate consent in the country. It is important that it not be there to harass legitimate protestations or demonstrations against governments of the day. It is important that it be there to stop illegal and violent activities, not to thwart in any way legitimate dissent in Canada. Without the proper kind of parliamentary scrutiny and accountability-and they are not built into the system at this time-I am afraid that the powers under its mandate are too sweeping and too broad. I say that having seen the October crisis and the many occurrences which led up to the inquiry by the McDonald Commission.
I see Mr. Speaker indicating that my time is up. Perhaps I could continue at a later date.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I have to rise at this point in time to participate in the debate, under the circumstances. I draw the attention of the House to what exactly we are debating. I suggest that it is a motion which was put surreptitiously, in bad faith, by the Deputy Whip of the Liberal Party that the question on second reading be now put.
For those uninitiated in parliamentary procedure, let me describe what this means. Purely and simply it is a motion by an arrogant, unthinking and callous government to impose closure on a debate involving a very serious problem with respect to the security of the country. Simply put, that is what we are faced with by this Government. We have had the opportunity of considering this matter for some three days on the floor of the House of Commons. Granted we have had over eight hours of debate. Also we have had the opportunity of hearing some very interesting points of view. But as was pointed out earlier by my colleagues, we have had no more than three government participants. The purpose of one of those interventions was to move the motion of closure. That is the way in which this Government views this important issue. That is the kind of so-called bona fides with which they approach the issue of a security service in Canada and allow elected Members of the House of Commons an opportunity for full and frank debate about the merits of the legislation. That is an indication of the way in which the Government will deal with what I consider to be fair and reasonable Opposition amendments.
Quite frankly, we can disabuse ourselves of any idea that the Government has any serious intention of listening to the Opposition or to any other interest group, especially on the basis of the way in which it is now operating with respect to the legislation. Government Members say that the Senate has heard representations concerning this legislation. They have said that there have been royal commissions. However, what they are saying to Canadians is that, as far as their elected

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
representatives are concerned, they are nobodies who have no say in what goes on in terms of this legislation.
I say to the Government and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in particular that they should not have any illusions with respect to the sincerity with which we approach the legislation. In the course of this debate they will find, if and when we are forced by the Liberal majority to terminate the debate on the floor of the House of Commons, that the end is not necessarily in sight. We will not be pushed around. Whether or not the Solicitor General somehow thinks that his colleagues are out seeking the leadership of that Party, I would like to hear from each and every one of the leadership contestants what they think about this kind of tactic. Do they think the Liberal Party with its majority should be forcing through by a form of closure legislation to impose on Canadians a civilian security intelligence agency with some serious defects? As I pointed out to the Solicitor General, this piece of legislation requires much serious work.
I am not here to be an obstructionist. I have been attempting to find some rational middle ground concerning a full and reasonable examination of the matter in committee. The Solicitor General knows that. I have approached him on a number of occasions asking that a special committee be established to take the onus off the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which will be faced with an enormous workload. I asked that the special committee have the authority to do some reasonable travel across the country.
I will tell the House why I feel strongly about the power of the committee to travel. I come from a part of the country which is not driving distance from Ottawa. My constituents are concerned about national issues but, in order to participate in the process in Ottawa, they have to travel some 2,000 miles, very often at their own expense. Some people say that they are losing their respect for parliamentary institutions. In Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, when it takes that amount of expensive travel to make representations in person, no wonder there is a sense that somehow parliamentary institutions are not fulfilling their potential. The idea of travelling to Saskatoon, Regina, Vancouver, Halifax, St. John's or places where serious Canadians want to participate in national debates to make their input known is a service to these people. If the Solicitor General thinks that he should contain the committee in Ottawa, rush through the process and ride roughshod over the Opposition with a Government majority on the committee, as is the case in the House of Commons, I tell him that he is doing himself a disservice.
I felt that we had an opportunity for making reasonable arrangements with respect to committee consideration of the entire issue. I took the Solicitor General to heart when he said on the floor of the House of Commons that he was prepared to listen to Opposition suggestions. What do we get in response to an Opposition suggestion concerning the handling of this matter by committee? We get closure.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is not closure.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I hear the Solicitor General. He knows the effect of the motion that the question on second reading by now put. The Government has the majority and no further amendments can be put. He knows that the callous Government majority will ram through legislation which involves the civil liberties of Canadians.
We have heard much about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who is now retiring and the Charter of Rights. This will be his monument to greatness. I ask the House to reconsider what kind of government uses its majority to impose closure on a matter of such serious implication as this to the civil liberties of Canadians.


Ian Deans: A majority government.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, it is a majority government. It is a government which is able to exercise once in a while-and on occasions such as this-great and enormous powers with respect to ramming legislation through the House of Commons. I put the Solicitor General on notice that I will not accept the bona fides of the Government with respect to this matter. There is real reason for Canadians to be concerned about the bona fides of this Government with regard to this legislation and its real intention to accept reasoned amendments to the legislation, to accept any suggestion for improvement, whether it comes from the Opposition or important interest groups in this country.
I rise now to address this Bill on a second occasion, which I did not think I would have to do. I do it with a sense of great disappointment. I do not think we have been unreasonable. Everyone from my Party who participated in this debate made an intelligent and worth-while contribution. I do not think anyone can say that we have been obstructionist or that we attempted to speak just for the sake of speaking. What kind of thanks do we get for that approach to this legislation? We get, I am sorry to say, a motion moved which is tantamount to closure. The people of Canada will remember this when they regard this Government at the time of the next election.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I spoke on Bill C-9 this time last week. I was quite content to have had my say at that time. I thought I made some interesting observations with regard to the principles contained in the Bill. I would have been quite happy to sit quietly in my seat and let the debate proceed to its natural conclusion. However, we find ourselves now faced with a motion that amounts to closure imposed by the Government side. I now feel compelled to speak a second time and to point out the wrongness of what the Government is trying to do to limit debate.
The Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen), in his meagre contribution to the debate this afternoon, continued to talk about the principles of Bill C-9, saying that we should not change anything, that it is okay for all of these illegal things to go on and be engaged in by the security service, so long as we do not know about it. I found that a rather funny
March 16, 1984

attitude on behalf of that member of the NDP. I could not understand it at all.
It is not my intention to rebut the Hon. Member for Kootenay West, but rather to deal with this serious threat to Parliament that we face this afternoon. The motion is that debate be now terminated, that the vote on second reading of Bill C-9 take place without any further opportunity for discussion. I am unable to understand the motivation of the Government. The debate seemed to be proceeding in an orderly manner. We have had two or three days' debate on the issue. It has not been excessive. Government Members chose not to participate in the discussion. We cannot force them to if they are not interested in the matter before us. Perhaps they have been instructed to keep quiet. I understand that it is not an uncommon practice on the other side of the House.
Had the motion that the question be now put not been introduced in the House today, there was every likelihood of the debate winding down and being terminated by the appropriate time this afternoon. There would have been nothing to get excited about. That is what would have happened. With the introduction of this tricky move, other Members, on this side of the House at least, will want to make the same statements as me and insist that we debate adequately the question whether debate should or should not be terminated. I cannot see any rhyme or reason for that move.
I would like to have seen debate on second reading terminate this afternoon and the Bill sent to committee where it could be studied in detail. That is the correct process, the process now being cut off by the Government. I am unable to understand why the Government wants to cut off orderly debate and initiate another debate on the question of putting the question. The result will be a situation exactly the converse of what the Government wanted. The result of cutting off debate will be to prolong the debate. It is not for me to judge the rightness or wrongness of the Government's tactics.
This is a very important issue, one that justifiably should be debated in detail in this House. We should not set aside debate at the whim of the Government. We have before us a whole new system of dealing with security matters in Canada. The Bill addresses the various checks and balances that are needed if we are to have a security service. It is a very important piece of legislation because it deals with the relationship between the state and its citizens. Because it is so important, it deserves careful debate. Although it is important, it is not particularly urgent.
The principles involved in the Bill go back to the time of the Mackenzie Commission in 1969 and the McDonald Commission in 1981. If there was no urgency in 1969 after the Mackenzie Commission to bring in legislation, why is there now? Why can it not wait another few hours for debate to expire?
As I said before, the present security service in Canada is doing a reasonable job. I do not say it cannot be improved, but Canada will not go down the drain in the next three weeks if this legislation is not passed. It really does not matter whether the existing system is replaced in one, three or six months from
Security Intelligence Service
now. Although the Bill is very important, it is not that urgent. It is important that we make a very careful study of the proposals and make the correct changes rather then rush into something we might regret later.
So far I have confined my comments to the specific case of closing debate on Bill C-9. I wish to take a few minutes to address what I would say is the general case. Why does the Government always want to cut off and limit debate in Parliament? Why did it use closure 16 times during the first session of this Parliament? Is it just on account of arrogance caused by being in office too long? I will be charitable and surmise otherwise.
I think the real reason this is a consistent practice of the Government is that it has forgotten how to work within the parliamentary system. Instead of legislation being initiated or at least developed within Parliament and parliamentary institutions, nearly all of the new legislation that is brought before us is being generated by and initiated from within the bureaucracy in Government Departments. There have been consultations and discussions but these have not taken place within this . Chamber or within parliamentary committees and parliamentarians have not really been involved in that process. They take place within the bureaucracy.
What happens then is that legislation is presented to Parliament in finished form and the Government tries to use its docile and subservient majority to push it through Parliament as a mere formality. Government members want to use Parliament as a formality in the same way as Royal Assent is given to Bills as a formality. In my opinion, Parliament ought not to be just a rubber stamp. We must again become the instrument of legislative initiation. Therefore, Sir, I would suggest that Members should not support this motion and that debate ought to be allowed to come to a natural and not a forced conclusion.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have not spoken on this Bill before, and as my colleague has said, thank goodness I have not because if I had, I would hardly be able to speak again. I do not propose to go over what has already been presented by members of my own caucus.
I know you are aware, Sir, that some time ago the Leader of this Party, in presenting a submission to the McDonald Commission, made it quite clear that this Party and the caucus of this Party supported a civilian security service. But he made it quite clear as well that that support would only be forthcoming if the legislation was properly drafted and contained full safeguards both with respect to oversight and the powers of the agency itself. I do not think anyone denies that there is a need for such an agency to protect the country from spying activities or subversion. The question at the moment is whether or not this particular piece of legislation meets this need and whether or not it provides guarantees that there can be no abuses of the powers that are given.

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
We have heard some of the comments that have been made by Attorneys General and others across the country and we cannot help but think that we in this Party do not stand alone in opposition to the content of the Bill which we now see before us. We know, for example, that the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, the province I am pleased to represent and in which I have worked all of my adult life, has said that the new Bill mentions threats to Canada's security by foreign-influenced activities. Mr. McMurtry said that that sort of definition could include automobile companies such as Honda and Toyota that compete with domestic firms. Perhaps he may be going a little far in drawing that kind of an analogy but I think the point that he is making is that the Bill is so badly drafted and its provisions so inadequate as to make it virtually impossible for any reasonable person, faced with having to deal with the Bill and the agency itself, to determine themselves or through those representing them when and how one is seen to be in violation of the protection of Canada.
Although I personally cannot verify it as being entirely accurate but can only assume that it may well be accurate since it has not been refuted by anyone; it has been reported that Members of Parliament from Quebec are not entirely happy with this piece of legislation and that those from the Province of Quebec are really quite concerned about the whole idea of the federal spy agency.


Mr. Cosgrove:: Is that Mr. Mulroney?


Ian Deans: The Hon. Member for York-Scarborough (Mr. Cosgrove) asks if I am referring to Mr. Mulroney.


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


Ian Deans: I assume he is referring to the Leader of the Official Opposition. The truth of the matter is that no one knows if he feels that way or not since he says so little about anything. It may well be that he feels that way, but the fact of the matter is that Members of Parliament from Quebec are reported to be very concerned about the existence of this agency in the form in which it has been presented by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).
One need not be of any great age to remember the actions taken by the Liberal Government in the Province of Quebec which were subsequently proven to have been totally unnecessary and extremely harmful. I can well understand that, on the one hand, the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario says that the Bill is inadequate in its draftsmanship and that, on the other hand, Members of Parliament from the Province of Quebec are saying that the Bill is undesirable in its present form. I can understand that because they too must be able to read, as I am able to read, the comments made by the Solicitor General and by his officials.
The Solicitor General and his officials have said, and again I am quite sure that this is correct, that the special review committee of three to five Privy Councillors, mostly retired Cabinet Ministers, will be able to report any attempted cover-ups to Parliament. However, government officials admit that the committee, bound by a secrecy oath, would only be able to
report to Parliament in the vaguest of terms and would certainly not be able to name anyone. What kind of oversight is that? What kind of protection is that? How does the Parliament of Canada respond to the demands of the people of the country? We who are duly elected should at least have some access, if not total access, to information of this type in order to know about the actions of the agency.
The Minister may say that albeit the agency is given power to break the law, that power is to break the law in minimal ways. Incidentally, the Minister has said that and no doubt believes it is true because I know that he is an honourable man. However, he then goes on to say at another time that security agents could enter the offices of doctors and MPs. One must question if that is a minimal breaking of the law. Is that a suitable kind of action that could be condoned by a duly elected and responsible Parliament? Is it reasonable to give members of the security agency the kind of carte blanche that would allow them to enter a doctor's office and rummage through the records and take for their own use those records which they feel would be of help to them in the pursuit of their responsibilities?
Does not that situation open up the whole question of the confidentiality of such records and the protection of individual's rights? Does it not come into conflict with everything that we in Canada have stood for with regard to the right of individuals to maintain the degree of confidentiality necessary to protect themselves from undue or unnecessary harassment?
It seems to me that the legislation, as the Attorney General of Ontario has said, as my colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has said and as many of my other colleagues have said, is an inadequate piece of work. It is inadequate because it does not do what is necessary to protect the innocent public from over-zealous or perhaps downright intentional intrusion into their lives.
As I started I end, Mr. Speaker; through our Leader this Party has argued for a civilian security service. We cannot accept a security service established by legislation that does not contain protective mechanisms to guarantee a stop to the kinds of abuses that have been identified as possible by groups ranging all the way from civil liberties associations to attorneys general. For that reason, and that reason alone, Mr. Speaker, we cannot expedite passage of the Bill, nor can we allow the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to continue with it in its present form.


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for recognizing me so that I can say a very few words on Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I must inform the House that this legislation has bothered me for some weeks. I am apprehensive about it; I do not fully understand it; I do not fully understand the need for it; I do not fully understand its purpose, its structure, its powers or its democratic concepts. As a result, I am concerned that the debate, particularly on the principles of the Bill, should be terminated without what I consider to be an
March 16, 1984

extensive debate. I know there has been a good deal of debate so far, but I think the principles of the Bill should be debated extensively, rather than the details. It is the principle of the Bill that we debate on second reading.
I wish to state very briefly, Mr. Speaker, that I am not in favour of the motion to terminate debate on second reading and move this Bill into committee, and it is my intention to vote against the motion before the House.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take a few minutes to deal with the background of Bill C-9 which has evolved from Bill C-157, presented to the House some months ago. I should aso like to discuss some of the rights and freedoms that I think the Bill ignores, and I should like to talk about the lack of parliamentary accountability in the legislation.
As many Members of the House will know but some of my constituents may not remember, in 1976 it was revealed that the RCMP security service had been involved in a number of criminal wrongdoings in the Province of Quebec. In 1977, the McDonald Royal Commission was established to inquire into the activities of the security service of the RCMP. It sat from 1977 until 1980 and issued a report which was very critical of the activities of the security service, particularly some of the activities which took place during the 1970s leading up to what is now popularly known as the FLQ crisis in the Province of Quebec.
The Commission found that there had been widespread institutional lawbreaking by the members of the RCMP security service. So far none of its members have been charged in court for any of the illegalities that occurred outside the Province of Quebec. The Government refuses to prosecute for breaches of federal statutes under its jurisdiction. No disciplinary action has been taken against members of the RCMP security service as a result of wrongdoing within the service although a number of trials are presently under way in the Province of Quebec.
The bottom line is whether the rule of law, which is the foundation of our Canadian judicial system, has been subverted. The law must apply to all Canadians, whether security service members or not. That is the position that is at issue today. Those of us who oppose the Bill going to committee say that Canadians should be treated equally before the law. If there are times when the security service or the police forces have temporarily to take action which is contrary to the law, they must do so only after having received an order from a judge permitting such action.
The McDonald Royal Commission report was made public in August, 1981, when the Minister announced on behalf of the Government that it was accepting the key recommendations of the report that a civilian security service outside the framework of the RCMP would be established. The new agency, with its sweeping powers and lack of accountability will be a step backwards, in our view. The Minister appointed a task force to draft legislation flowing from the McDonald Commission report. The Bill which resulted was tabled in
Security Intelligence Service
May, 1983, as Bill C-157. It rejected many of the key recommendations of the McDonald Commission and was denounced across the country by provincial attorneys general, civil libertarians, academics and a broad cross-section of the Canadian community.
One of the problems with the Bill is in its definitions, particularly for the protection of the individual rights and liberties of Canadians at the same time as for dealing adequately with genuine threats to national security. As the Senate committee under Senator Pitfield said, this is a very delicate balance to reach. We agree that it is a very delicate and necessary balance and we think that this Bill fails to meet the test.
The major problem of the security service has been, and under this Bill would continue to be, the absence of political accountability, which on occasion has led to a failure to distinguish between dissent and subversion among the groups and individuals being investigated.
This Party suggests that the improved version of the Bill which came from the Senate subcommittee still falls short of the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. An example of this was brought to light by Edward Greenspan, a well-known lawyer from Toronto. He believes that the present version of the Bill would grant the agency that would be created the right to tap telephones not only for one year, which was supposed to be a protection for Canadians, but that an extension of the original warrant would result in the service being able to monitor people's telephones forever. There is no limit to the secondary application that the service is required to make once the application for the first year runs out.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: We think he is wrong about that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Greenspan has pointed out that he believes that under the Bill Canadians can have their conversations bugged without any suggestion of lawbreaking or foreign control. He believes that there are no guidelines governing how closely judges must scrutinize wiretap applications and that there are no effective controls over the length of the surveillance.
This particular shortcoming of the Bill engaged Mr. Greenspan's interest. He thinks that the evidence would indicate that Canada is becoming a "wiretap happy country" compared to the United States. On a per capita basis, there are 20 wiretaps in Canada for every one in the United States. This would indicate that we have a much higher propensity among our secret service to place wiretaps than is the case across the border, Mr. Speaker.
One of the most serious problems with the Bill is the apparent lack of a watchdog agency to monitor what kinds of activities the secret service is engaged in. There has been an attempt to improve parliamentary accountability with the introduction of a Security Intelligence Review Committee, which would be a very limited committee operating under the auspices of the Privy Council. The members of that Council would be sworn to secrecy and could not report their findings in a general way, so that Members of Parliament, who are not

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
members of the council, would be denied the fundamental information.
It is rather intriguing to look at the name of that particular group. It is called an "oversight agency", providing an oversight mechanism. I went to the dictionary because I was aware of two ways of interpreting the word "oversight". One definition is supervision, which I hope is the meaning which was intended in the reference in the Bill to an oversight mechanism, because the other definition of oversight is "omission to notice" or "a mistake of inadvertence". I hope that the oversight agency does not see its particular mandate as being to overlook and set aside because of inadvertence a lot of the problems and rules under which the security service is being permitted to operate.
In short, Mr. Speaker, I simply say that we in this Party propose to oppose this particular Bill going to committee for some of the reasons I have outlined. There are many more reasons for opposing this Bill, for example, on libertarian grounds and on the question of adequate parliamentary security, but since my time is up, I will resume my place.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, it is no news to Hon. Members of the House that Bill C-9 is an Act to establish a new civilian spy agency to be called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This new agency will have special powers to open mail, place wiretaps, make surreptitious entries into people's homes and use government records to obtain confidential information about persons who have committed no illegal act.
While the present Bill has removed some of the injustices which this Party pointed out in the previous Bill C-157, it still does not implement many of the essential recommendations of the 1977 McDonald Commission, which was established as a result of RCMP wrongdoings in the 1970s, and we are still concerned that these wrongdoings went unpunished.
The New Democratic Party cannot support this Bill for a number of reasons which my colleagues have pointed out. However, I would like to put on the record that the most important reasons are the lack of accountability to Parliament, and the broad, sweeping powers to be given to a civilian agency which are unprecedented.
I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) in particular, Mr. Speaker, for having so strongly opposed Bill C-157 and now opposing Bill C-9. His position reflects in general the views of civil rights groups across Canada and certainly of many Canadians who are convinced that both Bills undermine democracy. As usual, the Conservatives are on both sides of the fence trying to cover up their divisiveness by saying "Let us not rush it". Our Party wants to know if they are for or against Bill C-9 and what they would do if they were the government.
My colleagues have spoken at length about the problems which we find with Bill C-9, and I would like quickly to summarize the problem areas. Highly intrusive special warrants may be used against Canadian residents who have done nothing wrong or disloyal, and are not even suspected of wrongdoing. Intrusive techniques such as special warrants may be used against subversive, as distinct from foreign-influenced, activity. This is something which concerns us in that there are the same provisions for domestic activities as for foreign spy suspects. Advocates, protesters and dissenters are included in the security mandate if they transgress some law, however minor. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, having picketed in many demonstrations, as have many of my colleagues, that we will probably be out there lined up with the first group of suspects.
The "anti-judge shopping" clause makes it easy for the service to avoid having to tell the judge, to whom a warrant application is made, that an early application has been denied. Judicial warrants or authorization from senior officials need not be obtained prior to infiltrating an organization. Confidential solicitor-client communications, tax returns, health records and the confessional, are still fair game. Contrary to the recommendations of both the Pitfield committee and the McDonald Commission, the judge will not have the power to refuse a special warrant where the invasion of privacy proposed far outweighs the value of any evidence.
There is no parliamentary review, contrary to the recommendations of the McDonald Commission. Therefore, there is no ultimate political accountability. Perhaps the most important criticism we have is that the review committee, the only real control in the whole scheme-or supposed control-before it pursues a complaint or conducts an audit, must let the service know that it is coming and what it is looking for. The review committee is not given access to any file anywhere, at any-time. In all three of these major areas, mandate, powers and controls, I feel it is shocking that the Minister and the Government are unrepentant.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that in preparing to speak to this Bill, a lot of memories were brought back to those of us who were activists during the late 1960s and 1970s and who were involved many times in the front lines of protests and work for social change. I am most concerned that this Bill will still allow intrusion into the lives of innocent people, people who are social activists, reformers and who wish to demonstrate and sometimes resort to civil disobedience. They will be suspects. We know that the RCMP had over 800,000 files on Canadians, many of whom have committed no illegal act. We do not even know what has happened to these files. Is this to continue under the new civilian security service?
I recall being very much involved with welfare rights groups during the 1970s, Mr. Speaker, militant, anti-poverty groups. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that no one would have listened to the poor during those days if there had not been some militant activists who were ready to go out on the front lines. Most people were so beaten down with lack of income that it was difficult for them to organize. I am sure that the names and photographs of those people, myself included, were recorded by the RCMP and probably are still on file. I know of one leader who was harassed by the police, and I do believe him when he claims that a gun was planted in his room deliberately
March 16, 1984

by the RCMP. This was used to intimidate him to the point where he had to give up all of his activities and go underground.
1 know Canadian citizens of Japanese descent who were condemned as spies because of their racial characteristics. They are still living in my riding of Vancouver East. Activists have been particularly suspect. I think particularly of a woman named Kay MacPherson from Toronto who has been a leader in the peace movement in the New Democratic Party and is a very active person on the National Action Committee for the Status of Women. Is she going to be suspect here in Canada, as she was when she tried to cross the United States border to go to a peace rally in Washington? Is this the kind of McCarthyism we are going to have in Canada? Labour groups certainly will be suspect, especially if they protest against any right wing foreign governments. Is a wildcat striker who refuses to handle South African imports really a threat to Canada? Will he be suspect?
In my remaining time, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to the specific example of a member of the Prime Minister's Office who was once a target of the Canadian secret service. I refer to a column in the Ottawa Citizen of February 17 which refers to David Crenna, a former employee of CMHC who joined the PMO after the 1980 election. He was one of 21 government employees appearing on the notorious EPO list circulated to Cabinet Ministers in June, 1971. Apparently EPO stands for Extra-Parliamentary Opposition. The PMO press office confirmed that Crenna, whose title is social policy adviser, was on the list. Of late, he has figured prominently in press stories as the covert agent sent to Washington to get the dirt on the Leader of the official Opposition. Apparently what he got from the SEC were some prospectuses and salaries, and we know about that. The article says:
Back in 1971, the shoe was on the other foot. This graduate of the London School of Economics was identified by secret service analysts as one of several sources of subversion burrowing into the Canadian bureaucracy.
Here are a few extracts from Mr. Goyer's letter of June 15, 1971, the Minister who was investigating him:
I have recently received a report containing information which the Security Service has accumulated about the concept of "Extra-Parliamentary Opposition" ... as interpreted by advocates of the New Left in Canada.
Those vicious New Lefters, Mr. Speaker. It goes on:
The report also draws attention to the activities of various persons and groups, some of them employees of the Federal Government, who support the EPO concept and who appear to have as their aim the destruction of the existing political and social structure in Canada.
The EPO concept, in the context of the New Left, does not mean legitimate pressure group activity but rather the creation of counter or parallel institutions within society-
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, a counter-culture within Canada being established by an activist now in the PMO. It continues:
Through such institutions the New Left seeks to organize and radicalize the "underclasses'' of society and mould them into a revolutionary force capable of overthrowing the socio-political system . . .
Security Intelligence Service
He might even have been against the Liberals in those days, who knows. I use this example because I think it shows how easy it is for our society and people in power to abuse the freedom of individuals. Certainly this new force will add to that risk, not solve the problem.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, I have one of those difficult ridings to remember. It is difficult for many people to understand where exactly it is. Do I represent the entire province or not? I always like to point out that I represent an area between Toronto and the place where the NDP members enter into Parliament. They are very proud of me in my riding because I am there to defend them against the socialists to my left.
I was shocked and dismayed this afternoon by the Deputy Whip, who I always felt was a gentleman. I do not believe he came up with this idea on his own. I believe it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) who did, because that gentleman is evil, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Scott Fennell: He is evil. He is the kind of person who destroys the image of the House of Commons. The people in the gallery have been here today to see what that Party is trying to shove down the throats of Canadians. I do not believe the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was involved as much as the Parliamentary Secretary. However, I am delighted to be speaking on this Bill because there is very little in it that I can commend. I sincerely believe that the Solicitor General does not understand the Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Get serious.


John Leslie Evans: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know the people watching on television can understand the Hon. Member was calling me evil in a jocular way, but it certainly will not show up that way in Hansard. I wonder if he would mind clarifying that, because I know he was doing it in a joking fashion.


Mr. Dick:: It is a legitimate point of debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I would have to check the "blues" to see if there is really a point of order, but perhaps the Hon. Member can consider what he has said.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I do not have Roget's Thesaurus in front of me, but if I did I would call him mischievous.


John Leslie Evans: I will agree with that.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I will withdraw the word "evil". Yet I think he understands the point I was making.
As I was saying, before I was so rudely interrupted by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, I do not believe the Solicitor General really understands this Bill. In a speech, the Attorney General of Ontario quoted the Minister of Justice of France who said that freedom cannot

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
defend itself by taking measures which kill liberties. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. We are talking about the fear of Canadians that this Bill will remove their liberties.
The reason I really want to speak on this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is that I as a Canadian am very proud of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. It is one of our great traditions and part of our heritage. It is criminal to take the responsibilities they have handled so well out of their hands, yet leave it to them to implement any prosecutions which must be made. There is a secret force to collect the information, yet its members will have to depend on that very fine organization, the RCMP, to implement any action which must be taken. I strongly believe this responsibility should remain with the RCMP.
There is a great danger of our rights being eroded, Mr. Speaker. So many have been in the five years I have been here that I am ashamed of not having been able to stop it. The rights of Members of Parliament have been eroded,


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How?


Thomas Scott Fennell: The Solicitor General knows that we spend hours in committee and no one listens to us.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I know we passed a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a Freedom of Information Act.


Thomas Scott Fennell: That is great. I am glad he brought out the Freedom of Information Act.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is your ten minutes.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Yes, and I would just like to talk about that. Under the Freedom of Information Act we are supposed to have access to all information. A report was made by an independent agency called the Shielding Corporation, yet the Minister responsible for social development cut 35 pages from the report which he did not want us to see. What good is freedom of information if the Government can select what you are going to see and what you are not going to see? I am glad the Solicitor General brought that out.
What I object to about this Bill, Mr. Speaker, is the power given to this agency which is not responsible to the House of Commons. It can open our mail. If can open a letter from my daughter to myself, from my son, from anyone, and that is infringing upon my right and the rights of 150,000 people who live in my riding. It can go through my medical records. There are many people who go to a psychiatrist, sometimes during their lifetime, in order to get help. This agency will have the right to seek information from doctors and psychiatrists in this country.
This agency will be permitted to go through tax files. In light of the inefficient and corrupt practices of Revenue Canada, it is possible that the information this agency obtains will be inaccurate.
This Bill permits the taping of telephone conversations. Russia has a ship stationed off the Cape of Good Hope that is
equipped with a computer to monitor conversations throughout the world through the use of a satellite. Whenever a trigger word, such as "agent" is heard, the computer automatically records that information so that it can be assessed. The same thing takes place in our country.
I also discovered that it is not necessary to bug our phones, our homes or offices. It is possible, through the use of laser beams, to cut into a private conversation which I may be having in my office. Although this agency is to be given those rights, they are not spelled out in the Bill. New technology has changed everything, but we must remember that those practices infringe upon our liberties.
Today many people have personal computers in their homes. The security service will be able to intercept the use of personal computers. This is another infringement on our rights. The interconnecting of computers into main frames to seek information is a whole new subject that must be dealt with. No one should have the right to do that, but this service will.
I suggest that this Bill represents a total invasion of privacy. No one trusts the Government any longer because it has acted so immorally. The actions it has taken have been ill-conceived and have had a serious effect on the economy of this country. No one believes that the Government would bring in legislation for a security service that would do anything but erode the civil liberties of Canadians.
Small business people in this country are having enough trouble without this service being able to listen in on them and then, in some contrived fashion, bring an action against them. That would destroy investment in Canada which creates jobs.
Our Party has taken a strong stand against this Bill, and we will continue to do so. We must remember that this Bill was not conceived in the Justice Committee but was born in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) Office. The Government even attempted to sneak it through a Senate committee, but even its own colleagues in the Senate spoke against the Bill. I appreciate the opportunity to speak, and we will hear a great deal more from my colleagues.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to intervene on this motion that was put by the Government. I will not dwell on the fact that this motion, in effect, is an attempt to muzzle debate in the House of Commons since no further amendments can be put. The argument against the motion is not so much that other amendments cannot be put, but simply that the Government has shown its complete ineptness by moving such a motion. It does not have a sense of what is happening in this Chamber. If the Government had attempted to co-operate, there would have been a very good chance for this bill to have been passed today. When it deliberately antagonizes the Opposition, the Opposition will take the opportunity to debate this matter.
When I had the opportunity to speak on this Bill last week, I said that the only reason our Party was anxious to continue debate and not have the Bill go to committee was that we wanted the Government to give the committee the right to
March 16, 1984

travel. However, the Government indicated its fear of being brought down if its members were away travelling. I think the Government would have received some co-operation from us. For instance, if the committee that was travelling was comprised of six government Members, three of our Members and perhaps an NDP Member, we would ensure that two other people in addition to the four who are travelling would not vote in order to ensure that an equal number is away from the Chamber. 1 put that proposition to the Government last week so that it would not have any fear of being defeated while the committee was travelling. The government Party would not need to be afraid of being defeated during this time when they are seeking a leader. I do not know if they will find any leadership within their corps, perhaps only a few retreads.
The difficulty is that the Government does not want the committee to travel. What is annoying about that is that only the wealthy people in this country will be able to attend the committee hearings as witnesses because they can afford to pay for hotels and air fare. There are average citizens and community organizations from areas like Esquimalt, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg or Yarmouth in Nova Scotia that might wish and might be able to contribute something if a hearing were held in areas near them. However, they might not be able to afford to come to Ottawa to make their presentations before the committee here, so that it will be only the well-heeled and well-established organizations from which we will hear when the committee sits to discuss this Bill.
The fact that the Government has taken 17 years to bring this Bill forward is no reason for having to rush through it in a day or two or on four Friday afternoons in a row. If the Government wanted to be responsible, democratic and listen to what Canadians felt about this Bill, it would go out of its way to ensure that concerned average Canadians of modest means are able to give their evidence before the committee. In order to do that, it should allow the committee to travel.
I believe the committee should have the right to travel, and even during the dying hours of debate at second reading I hope the Government will reconsider its strident and arrogant position of insisting that everyone must come to Ottawa to give evidence to the committee. I believe this would significantly increase the input into a Bill which gives the potential right to delve into the most minute areas of private life and political activity.
This is a Bill seeking to establish a Security Intelligence Service that can potentially spy on citizens and inquire into the political activities of organizations throughout the country. Since it has the potential for intruding into the civil liberties of the average Canadian, I believe it to be prudent to permit the committee to travel and to hear from Canadians from all over the country.
The fact that the Government has moved a foolish little motion-which it certainly has the right to do-just shows that it certainly does not read the pulse of this Chamber or understand what is going on. But that is not new. The Government has not understood what has been happening for at least four years. Of course, the polls indicate that.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Pepin:: For twenty years.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Hon. Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) understands that they have been misjudging the people for many years as well.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Twenty.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I don't know. I have not been involved for that long. I am not as old hat as that, but maybe you are.


John Leslie Evans: You have not been involved for the last four years.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I think I have a pretty good pulse on the people, and I can say that I have a much higher percentage of popular vote in my riding than you have in yours.


John Leslie Evans: Do you want to bet?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Yes, gladly. However, those are only a couple of comments from that mischievous, sometimes referred to as evil, rather arrogant and boisterous Parliamentary Secretary who wants to try to muzzle the House. Common sense would tell him to travel and learn what the people want. Do not insist on putting those people of modest means to great expense. You would strike a deal with opposition Parties. They do not want to try to bring down the Government when it is searching for a leader-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Wyatt Dick: -unless the Liberals show continued absolute ineptitude. Their only worry is that they do not have pairs for a committee of six people. I say, "Come and we will strike a deal. We will make sure that because this committee is travelling your Government will not be defeated". If, however, you are incompetent in other areas, then that is another kettle of fish and, of course, if you do prove to be incompetent in other areas, you will not be able to point your finger at this committee having travelled.
I encourage the Government to reflect, to think and to stop its arrogant approach to things. I encourage it to be more democratic, to ask the people and to listen to the people especially, because this Bill can invade the privacy of individuals, it can invade political organizations and it can invade civil liberties and civil rights in that it is a Bill that deals with the Security and Intelligence Service. It is so important that all Canadians from all walks of life and of various means should have an opportunity to make representations. I encourage this Government to reflect and to try, through co-operation rather than the usual confrontational approach, to get along and see if it cannot do things a little more democratically.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, like other speakers on this side of the House this afternoon, I am somewhat disappointed by the Government for the trick it has pulled today. I will not call anyone on the other side any nasty names, unlike other Members, but I do not think respect is

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
shown for the House of Commons when one tries to close off debate on a Bill that is clearly controversial and clearly unpopular among most Canadians.
This is evidence of the hypocrisy of this Government that can bring in a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to which most of us in this House assented and which most of us find to be a good piece of legislation, while in the same Parliament it can bring in a piece of legislation which will take away or limit some of those rights and freedoms.
In the few minutes available to me this afternoon, I want to relate a personal experience which shows how this Bill would threaten the right of Members of the House of Commons to conduct themselves freely in representing their constituents. This experience took place in the fall of 1979. I had been a Member of the House for a matter of three or four months then. Indeed, the House had been sitting only a few days when circumstances started that led to the whole business that I am going to relate. The first chance I had to ask questions in the House of Commons occurred on October 12, 1979. I raised a couple of questions concerning the new fighter program. At the time they related to both the F-18 and the F-16. I directed these questions to the then Minister of National Defence, the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). In one of the questions I raised I referred to a report from a Government Department which indicated that one of the two companies that was the finalist in the competition for the new fighter aircraft had not been dealing in good faith in the opinion of bureaucrats in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In referring to that report I pointed out that it had never been officially released by the Government. I asked the Minister of National Defence to release it. I mentioned that I had a copy of the report in my possession. In answering my question in the House, the Minister of National Defence said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the philosophy of the defence critic for the NDP that this is going to be something that will not be absolutely necessary. We do not enter into these purchases lightly.
As far as the report is concerned alleging that the competition was a sham, 1 believe the report was not quite the one that it is purported to be. It was leaked some time ago. I did not find it worth while commenting on at the time. It was turned down at the first level of review. I am sorry the hon. member has taken it so seriously. The leaking of reports on a serious matter like this makes it more difficult to carry on negotiations, but negotiations have been carried on in a fair and competitive manner despite the leaking of that report.
That can be found in Hansard at page 123. I quoted from Hansard to indicate that the Minister said rather clearly that the report was really inconsequential, that it was peanuts as far as the government of the day was concerned.
After this exchange had occurred and about a month and a half later, the home of an Ottawa journalist, the journalist who had been researching material relating to that leaked report, was raided by the RCMP. I rose in the House on November 26, 1979, to question the then Prime Minister about this raid. I asked him to release guidelines which had been promised that would outline the powers of the RCMP in matters such as this. The then Prime Minister told me that this search and seizure of the reporter's papers had taken place under the authority of what he called "informal documents". He told me that these
documents were about to be replaced. He also admitted that day that these informal documents:
-had not been approved by the Government of Canada-the predecessor Government or our own-and, indeed, of whose existence until this affair I did not know.
What we had, Mr. Speaker, was a case where the Mounties at this time were operating without clear guidelines, at least none of which the Prime Minister was aware. I should hasten to point out that they were not acting on their own in this case but under the direction of a very uneasy and clearly embarrassed deputy minister of defence. A day or two later I learned that the RCMP had obtained a warrant to search my office in this building for the leaked material to which I had referred in the House a couple of months earlier, that leaked material being material which the Minister of National Defence had told me was inconsequential. As it turned out it was only as a result of a refusal by the Speaker of the day that the RCMP was not allowed to search my office.
On November 30, 1979 I raised a question of privilege, a part of which I shall read into the record as follows:
I do not believe that a member of Parliament is above the law, but as you, sir, pointed out to the RCMP when they contacted you, I am not guilty of any wrongdoing and, therefore, there should be no need for such a search. For your support and the support of the House leaders, I offer my thanks. . .
I believe that my rights and privileges will be affected by any search of my office for information it is not unlawful for me to have. Should any search be allowed, my relationship with my constituents will be adversely affected and so, too, will the rights and privileges of all members of this House . . .
Is it the policy of this government, without prima facie evidence, to authorize RCMP officers to set out on fishing expeditions in the offices of members of Parliament?
The question then, of course, was rhetorical for I surely believed that my privileges as a Member of this House could not be so easily violated. Mr. Speaker Jerome upheld my belief.
I would like to believe, Mr. Speaker, that those privileges are still held sacred, but it appears on looking at Bill C-9, that this is not the case. Early in February, 1984 I read in The Globe and Mail a report emanating from Ottawa which confirmed my fears. It seems that our current Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has admitted he has no qualms about this new civilian intelligence agency breaking into the offices of Members of Parliament.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A warrant authorized by a judge.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: If the piece of legislation we are currently debating had been in effect in 1979 and if the Solicitor General who sits across the House from us in 1984 has his way, my office could have been raided, simply on the approval of a judge.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With a warrant and an affidavit.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: "With a warrant", the Minister says. We are talking about a state of affairs or a historical fact which has been in place since the days of Cromwell when the King
March 16, 1984

invaded the House of Commons in Westminster and shut down Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: What do you have to hide?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I hear Hon. Members asking what I have to hide. If Members of the House of Commons are not allowed to act in the best interests of their constituents, if they are not allowed to act freely, and if their offices can be raided by whatever agency a government sets up and gives authority to, clearly the privileges of Members are being violated. Clearly it is violating the historical fact that the House of Commons and the offices of Members who, by extension and the precedent of the Jerome ruling in 1979, are part of the House of Commons. They are taking away a historical right. They are violating a democracy which has been in place for hundreds and hundreds of years.
Sadly, under this particular piece of legislation a very basic tenet of our democracy could be violated or lost. They sit over there today rather smugly, asking what we have to hide, to what we are objecting, and saying that it is all right with a warrant.


Some Hon. Members:: What are you afraid of?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I am afraid of Parliament being violated. They sit there rather smugly, saying that there is nothing wrong with taking away the historical privileges of Parliament.


John Leslie Evans: Why don't you send it to committee where that can be investigated?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I see Mr. Speaker signalling that my time is almost up. I will ignore the rabble across the aisle because I may not be so charitable; I may use some of the unkind language which was used earlier in the debate today.
In conclusion, obviously we have to object to this piece of legislation. It threatens rights in the country. It threatens our democracy. We will oppose it as much as we can.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take advantage of the last few minutes remaining before four o'clock to speak in this debate on second reading and, especially, to speak to the motion moved by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger). First of all, I can give my colleagues opposite the assurance that at four o'clock, we shall proceed with private members business, and that at five o'clock we shall adjourn as usual. I do not intend to take advantage of the absence of Opposition Members today to extend the sitting hours of the House. I therefore ask the Members of the Opposition to listen carefully so that they will understand the nature of the procedure now being debated instead of being unduly concerned about having to sit beyond normal sitting hours.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation now before the House is not new, although it bears the number C-9. It was introduced
Security Intelligence Service
subsequent to a Bill that was presented during the previous session as Bill C-157, which, after being very substantially amended, was introduced as Bill C-9, the Bill now being considered by the House.
To understand the action taken by the Member for La Prairie, we must realize that the subject matter of the Bill to establish a Canadian Security Intelligence Service was considered by the Senate for two months, and significantly, the Bill was referred to the Senate after the New Democratic Party had systematically obstructed the first reading of Bill C-157, an unusual and very rare occurrence in the House.
Thus, the Government's very first attempt to create this security service met with an entirely negative, irrational and irresponsible reaction on the part of the New Democratic Party, which refused to allow the Government to introduce the Bill. If they had challenged the Bill on second reading, at the time, it would have been clear that they wanted to improve the legislation and make an intelligent contribution. However, it was when the Government first attempted to bring the subject before the House that the New Democratic Party obstructed its attempts systematically, not because it wanted to express its own point of view, but because it simply wanted to create obstruction and prevent the tabling of this Bill. During the previous session, we had to vote on first reading and subsequently refer the subject matter to the Senate. For two months, the Senate heard witnesses and considered the question. The Solicitor General listened, consulted and finally amended, so that the Bill now before the House, Bill C-9, is an improved piece of legislation which takes into account the views of the Canadian people and of those who have an interest in the security of this country.
Therefore, if we understand the nature of the debate and how the Canadian Parliamentary system works, there is no reason to get upset when at this stage, a Government member tries to bring this debate to a logical conclusion, so that the Bill can be referred to Committee, where it can still be amended.
Perhaps Hon. Members will care to recall that before today, twenty-five Members had spoken to Bill C-9 at the second reading stage. That is impressive, considering the fact that on second reading, only the principle of a Bill is to be examined before referring the Bill to Committee, where, after witnesses have been heard, it is examined in detail, clause by clause. The Bill can be amended at this stage. After committee, there is the report stage where once again, amendments may be considered, and finally, there is third reading, before the Bill goes to the other Chamber, to the Senate, for consideration once again at all stages.
What we are seeing here today, is that after twenty-five Members have had an opportunity to express their views, a Member of the Opposition, who is a Member of the New Democratic Party, rises to say that they intend to move an amendment and delay second reading of the Bill for three
2198

March 16, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
months. I think this is unreasonable. It does not make sense, because although this is obviously a way to systematically obstruct a piece of legislation, it certainly does not help the House deal with this legislation in a sensible manner, and make sensible improvements. At this point, the Government had to act responsibly. We have a host of legislative measures on the Order Paper and we must also deal with Supply proceedings and the Government's requirement for borrowing certain sums of money which will be needed very shortly. We have all these measures which must be put before the House, and we cannot tolerate that at the preliminary stage of the debate on each Bill, Hon. Members try to cause undue delay and indulge in systematic obstruction.
Therefore, the procedure followed by the Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) is entirely proper. Sir John A. MacDonald used it in the constitutional debate at the very beginning of Confederation. In fact, I referred to it when we used the same procedure in the debate on the Crow.
This procedure quite simply prevents the introduction of amendments on second reading-dilatory amendments, according to the information given by the New Democratic Party-and makes it possible for every Member who chooses to continue to abuse the time of the House to speak for ten additional minutes before the Bill is referred to the committee. I hope that, under the circumstances, Hon. Members will have the decency of not abusing the time of the House and the reasonable procedure we have used. I hope that after hearing 25 Members before today, plus 18 more once I am through, Mr. Speaker, which adds up to some 45 speeches on second reading, as early as Monday we will be able to see the light at the end of the tunnel, so that this very important Bill to establish a Canadian Security Service will be considered in committee by Members on both sides of the House who will hear witnesses, examine every detail of the Bill and introduce amendments if it can be improved. We have already proved that we are reasonable and that we are prepared to accept amendments. We have done that and the door is still open. However, it would be ridiculous at this stage if Members were to prevent the Bill from moving forward and being improved, and that is what we are trying to avoid by using this procedure.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to have a constructive debate on this Bill on Canadian security. The best way to do that, in my opinion, would be to have the second reading vote at the end of the day Monday, so that the committee will be able to consider the Bill and leave the House free to study other measures which are required for Canada's economic and social development.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed with Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, March 19, 1984']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Shall all orders and items preceding No. 16 stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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



Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: that Bill C-219, an Act to amend the Immigration At, 1976 (determination of refugee status), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this Bill if passed will save a great deal of human anguish for people who are claiming refugee status and will save the administration of Canada, particularly in the Immigration Department, a great deal of expense and time. This Bill would alter the present system by which those who come to Canada and claim refugee status within Canada are examined in order to determine whether their claim to refugee status meets Canada's law. At present the system is very slow, as everyone will agree. Everybody concerned is very unhappy with the slowness. This Bill proposes a system which has been shown by experiment to be very effective in overcoming these problems.
The Bill is very simple. Section 45 of the Immigration Act would be amended by adding immediately after subsection 4 the following:
-before advising the Minister pursuant to subsection (4), the Refugee Status Advisory Committee shall, by notice in writing, afford the person who claims that he is a Convention refugee an opportunity to be heard and, at any such hearing, that person or his representative may adduce evidence, documentary or oral, in support of his claim.
That is all I am asking. It would not only benefit many thousands of people who must now wait in uncertainty and difficulty, but it would benefit the Immigration Department by removing one of the very serious hindrances to its present operation.
In brief, our refugee procedure is as follows for inland determination of refugee status. A person comes to a port of entry and declares that he is a refugee, or perhaps he has already entered the country on a visitor's visa or a student's visa. Because of changes in his country, at the expiration of his visa he makes a claim for refugee status. That is within the present law. After he makes that claim his case is then heard before an Immigration officer and a transcript is made of his evidence. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee examines
March 16, 1984

that transcript and any other evidence it may have that bears on the truth or falseness of his claim, evidence which is unknown to the claimant. He does not know what other evidence is being heard before the committee because he is not present at the hearing of the committee which decides his fate. The committee decides on his fate without ever hearing, meeting or seeing the man or woman whose fate they are deciding. I use the word "fate" because when a person is claiming refugee status, he is claiming that if he returns to his home he will be persecuted. Under our law, if he is judged a refugee, he is a person with a well-founded fear of persecution. This means he could well be killed. We are dealing with someone whose life is in danger. Under our present system, that person does not have a chance to stand before the people who are making a life-and-death decision. That person is normally not considered a criminal. There may be a few cases where a refugee applicant is alleged to have done something that places him possibly in a criminal category. I am speaking of the great majority against whom no criminal accusation is made. An innocent person may be judged in such a way as to be sent to his or her death by people who never lay eyes on that person, never hear that person speak, never have a chance to ask that person questions or never give that person a chance to correct any misunderstandings.
That is easy enough when it is all in one language, but some of these people do not speak English and have to work through interpreters. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee does not have a chance to make its own judgment as to whether or not that person is speaking the truth. This puts both the refugee claimant and the advisory committee in a very unjust situation. It is a situation which goes against the principle in our law which is that an accused person, in this case not accused but treated like an accused, has the right to stand before his or her judge and be seen directly. That is fundamental in our court procedure. It should be fundamental in dealing with usually innocent refugees who, if the decision goes against them, may be sent back to persecution, torture or death.
There are some safeguards. There is the Immigration Appeal Board. The refugee claimant who loses his case before the Refugee Status Advisory Committee may appeal to the IAB. If he loses there, he may appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal, or even to the Supreme Court, provided those courts give permission for the appeal to be made. The problem is that even there he will not be able to appear in his own cause. Those courts will examine only the transcript and documentary evidence put before them, usually by those who disagree with the person whose claim has already been judged unfounded.
We have a system which has grown up little by little and has become congealed into law which is not in keeping with the justice of our court system. The system has two main faults. I have described one, that the claimant goes unheard by his or her judges. I can put the word "judges" in quotation marks. They are not formally judges, but they act like judges in this case. He or she has no chance to answer, correct misunderstandings or be directly judged as to truthfulness and untruth-
Immigration Act
fulness. There is a denial of what we consider to be natural justice. That is one fault. The other fault is that the system is amazingly slow. It takes about a year and a half on average from the time the refugee is first examined under oath until the time when the Minister makes the determination on the recommendation of the committee. In the meantime, the refugee claimant is in limbo. He or she does not know what will happen. Refugee claimants may be allowed to work by being given work permits, but their status is very unclear. The status of their spouses and children is very unclear as well. They live for a year and a half in a kind of purgatory or limbo.
On the other hand, there are the cumbersome procedures within our Immigration Department such as the writing of transcripts by contract groups, the distribution and reading of those transcripts and so on. As I said, even with the best will in the world, this process takes an average of a year and a half to resolve.
For several years many requests have been made that this process be speeded up through the use of oral hearings. Amnesty International, a highly respected body with which the Government works closely, has asked for such a procedure. The Inter-Church Committee on Human Rights in Latin America, which is concerned with many, many refugee claimants from Latin American countries, has asked for this procedure. The Inter-Church Committee on Refugees has asked for it as well. In particular, the Government's own report of 1981 has asked for this procedure. I refer to the report entitled The Refugee Status Determination Process, a report of the task force on immigration practices and procedures established by the then Minister of Employment and Immigration in September, 1980. The task force reported 14 months later in November, 1981 under the signature of the chairman, W. G. Robinson, a highly respected lawyer who has the confidence of the Government. I shall quote from page xvi of the introduction. It reads:
Independent material should not be weighed against the claimant unless it has been expressly brought to his attention either at the examination or at a re-examination and he has had the opportunity to respond to it.
That could be carried out in the course of an oral examination. Otherwise we would not know if that was carried out. Further, and this can happen at a refugee claimant hearing:
A person whose credibility is being impeached should be put on notice and given the opportunity of explaining.
Again, that follows naturally from an oral hearing and would otherwise be very uncertain. The final recommendation is this:
A refugee claimant should be entitled to a hearing in every case where the RSAC is not prepared to make a positive recommendation on the basis of the transcript. The claimant who is granted a hearing should be given notice of the substance of the objections to his claim. At the hearing, the transcript of the examination should be taken as having been "read in" to evidence.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, for nearly four years this request for oral hearings has been before the Government. This request has been made by the most responsible citizens in the country who deal with refugee matters.

March 16, 1984
Immigration Act
In response, the Government initiated a pilot project 10 months ago in which some refugee claimants were invited to take part. It was a different kind of examination, namely, one at which a member of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee would be present. This is not required by law but it does not contravene the law. So the pilot project was attempted, and what were the results? The sample is small. Something like only 170 people were considered for the pilot project. However, what is very clear is that one of the objections has been quite remarkably answered by this procedure. Instead of taking 18 months on average from the time of the examination under oath to the time of the Minister's decision, this procedure took not much more than two months. The waiting time was cut to one-sixth of the time. That means that about 15 or 16 months of suffering, anxiety and perhaps poverty on the part of the refugee claimant and family were eliminated by this procedure.
Likewise, an immense amount of paperwork and staffing costs for the Immigration Department were eliminated. I do not know if this would result in unemployment for members of the Immigration Commission. I am sure that if some of them were not needed, the Government would be able to find other more useful work for them. It is clearly in the interests of everyone that this experiment, which after 10 months has been successful, should become the law so that every refugee claimant will have the same opportunity as these 170 refugee claimants who participated in the experiment.
One big problem is that the number of refugee claimants has been growing very fast. About two and a half years ago, about 2,000 people in Canada were claiming refugee status and their cases have not yet been finally disposed of. This was considered to have put an intolerable burden on the administration of the Immigration Department and on the country generally because these people had to live somehow while they waited and waited to find out whether they could stay as refugees or be made to leave. It was considered such an intolerable burden that the Government, two and a half years ago, imposed a visa requirement on East Indians. So many people had come in such a short time from India claiming refugee status and it was felt that their claims were generally not well founded. However, it would take so much time to determine if those claims were not well founded that the Government had to take the other course of action of imposing a visa requirement on all visitors from India.
Now the Government has imposed a visa requirement on Guatemalans who are fleeing a well documented brutal oppression under a murderous Government. These refugees are trying to get away from that situation, but our Government has now slammed the door and said that they cannot come to Canada without a visa. The same has happened to people from Guyana who also live under a brutal and oppressive Government. This week the Government has slammed the door and said that refugees from Guatemala cannot come to Canada without a visa.
While many Guatemalan refugees may be in danger of their lives, they cannot come to Canada. Theoretically they could go
to the Canadian Embassy in Georgetown and ask for a visa. They could then go home and wait for an answer, but they would also be waiting for the people who threatened them to come and do exactly what they have threatened to do because they were seen to be asking for refugee status in Canada. If we could speed up the time taken by these refugee hearings from 18 months to two months, there would be no need to slam the door on the people who are fleeing bloody dictatorships. The door was slammed on people from Chile, El Salvador and now Guatemala and Guyana.
As I understand it, the opposition to this Bill is simply that the entire refugee procedure needs to be overhauled. I do not doubt that, but after three or four years I hope we can go ahead with this one suggestion. I hope that it might be moved that the substance of the Bill that I have proposed will go to committee so that we could consider there the merits of making this one small change to the law which would save so much time and so much misery.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, in his very interesting and thought-provoking speech, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) has identified some of the concerns about refugee status determination with which the Department of Employment and Immigration deals on a day-to-day basis. In a moment I would like to put some of those problems in perspective for him and for other Members of the House.
First let me say that the issues referred to by the Hon. Member are not new to the Minister or to his departmental staff. Indeed, there is a continuing review of policy in this area and it is no coincidence that this process has developed a refugee program which is so highly regarded internationally. However, there are no easy, quick-fix solutions to what has become over the last few years one of the most bedevilling of immigration problems. I am sure that all interested parties, including the Members opposite, want a workable, humanitarian policy that will provide help to those who are truly in need. That means we have to put in place a program that separates those who might abuse the system from individuals who truly need access to a fair refugee determination system.
There is no denying that our system of refugee determination, while admired by officials at the United Nations and in other countries, encounters some problems. A major, very perplexing problem is that it has become increasingly difficult to identify true refugees quickly while enabling the removal of those whose claims are without merit and who seek, for their own reasons, to take advantage of the system. But the trick is to find answers that are not simplistic, that will not worsen the current situation and put an even heavier burden on the resources that we are able to commit to the worthwhile endeavour of aiding bona fide refugees.
The Geneva Convention on Refugee Status defines a refugee as a person who, by reason of a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion, is (a) outside the
March 16, 1984

country of his nationality and is unable or, by reason of such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country, or, (b) not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of his former habitual residence and is unable or, by reason of fear, is unwilling to return to that country.
Because Canada is not located next to a country from which it was anticipated large numbers of refugees would arrive, decision makers, including Members of the joint parliamentary committee and the Cabinet, decided that this country's principal role in refugee programs would be the resettling of refugees already in countries of first asylum. In this way, Canada plays an essential role in helping countries of first refuge to be more generous in their attitude toward people fleeing their homelands for legitimate reasons. Bearing this in mind, the refugee determination process established in Canada was expected to deal only with small numbers of people. This initial assumption has proven to be somewhat ill-founded.
The determination system written into the Immigration Act of 1976 gave the right to anyone facing removal from Canada to make a claim for refugee status. That applies not only to persons trying to enter the country but also to those who have been in Canada for any period of time as a visitor or immigrant. The 1976 amendments also provided for establishment of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, which has the authority to examine refugee claims and recommend to the Minister whether they are legitimate or unfounded. The Minister was given decision-making powers over the validity of claims and there could be a second evaluation of rejected claims by the Immigration Appeal Board.
The process does not stop there. Refugee claimants have the right to appeal to the courts to contest the legality of the review process by which their claims were heard. They have appeal rights under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act, and decisions by the Federal Court can be taken to the Supreme Court of Canada.
In the meantime, until their status if finally determined, claimants are able to stay in Canada. Canada does not remove or deport individuals awaiting determination of a refugee claim.
What has happened, in fact, is that most claims for refugee status have not been accepted by the Minister as valid, but few have departed from the country within reasonable time limits. And it has proved impossible administratively to move even obviously unfounded cases through the system very quickly. Advocacy groups which have argued that the review process is not sufficiently fair, have encouraged claimants to exhaust all the permissible legal avenues. This has exacerbated the already lengthy refugee determination backlogs.
As delays in the process lengthened, there were systematic attempts at abuse of the refugee determination system. People who were temporarily residing in Canada soon noticed that a way of remaining here and working was to claim refugee status. It was apparent that even the weakest claims took almost as much time to settle as the most complex. Toward the end of 1980, there was an influx of about 2,000 claimants from India whose primary purpose for coming to Canada was
Immigration Act
economic; to find a job in Canada with the hope of remaining. Nearly all the claims were unfounded, but they clogged the review system. This made the delays even more protracted as it showed others how to manipulate the system by claiming refugee status and thereby avoiding early removal from Canada.
Other countries have faced this dilemma, with increasing numbers of people claiming refugee status at a time of economic distress in their countries of origin. In fact, these individuals were attempting to change their country of residence for purely economic reasons. Recipient countries, like Germany, Sweden and Switzerland, reacted by tightening their refugee restrictions at a time when Canada was liberalizing hers.
The dramatic rise in the number of people coming to Canada in the last 18 months and claiming refugee status has placed a heavy burden on resources of those who must determine whether that claim is legitimate. Worse, it torments those whom the system is designed to help. It exposes genuine refugees to hardship because of the delay in reaching a decision on their claim and impairs immigration controls because of the inability to remove the unsuccessful claimants from Canada. Bona fide refugees can no longer be identified quickly and effectively.
The refugee determination committee can no longer keep pace with the volume of claims being received. For example, in the 30-month period between April, 1981 and October, 1983, the number of cases in the claims-appeals system increased to 9,100 from 2,500, not including another 1,500 cases awaiting entry into the system because of inadequate staff resources to do the initial documentation. While the acceptance rate of claims has risen to 38 per cent from 20 per cent since 1981, fewer than 3,000 rejected claims have been brought to conclusion. At the same time, organized attempts to enter the system have proliferated.
At the Refugee Status Advisory Committee level, efforts have been made to make the system as fair and open as possible. The capacity of the committee was increased through appointment of new Private Members and greater administrative back-up. An oral interview project was begun in June, 1983 to help identify bona fide refugees more quickly. Yet, despite the changes, the committee's backlog had increased to 2,400 cases from 1,600 cases by the end of last year. Some cases have been expedited, but the backlog continues to mount.
Similar problems have been encountered by the Immigration Appeal Board. Only cases of evident merit go before the board for a full hearing. An average period of one year elapses before a full hearing occurs. At the Federal Court, the average delay is now six months for a hearing. Between last August, 15 and September, 26 at the Federal Court of Appeal of Toronto, 94 per cent of the cases heard were immigration cases.
The result is that with three and four years' delays in processing being now routine, we have what amounts to an immigration movement of substantial proportions that has not been managed or regulated by the Government.

March 16, 1984
Immigration Act
What must be concluded, therefore, is that the Bill does not go far enough. The Hon. Member for Spadina proposes oral hearings as an extra feature of the refugee determination process. But what is he trying to achieve? Is the current system unfair? No. Are refugees being sent away? No. Mr. Speaker, the problem is delay, and my hon. friend's Bill will do nothing to deal with that.
I therefore must oppose his proposal.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I must commend the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) for raising this important subject which is certainly deserving of continued study and thought by all of us.
The Hon. Member's Bill deals with people in Canada, not those selected abroad for permanent residence in Canada as is the case with some well known refugee movements, for example, from Vietnam, Hungary, Uganda and so on. The Hon. Member's Bill deals with those who come to Canada and then apply for refugee status. We do have an obligation by virtue of our signature to the Geneva Convention on Refugee Status in 1969, to ensure that people are not sent back to their own countries if their fear of persecution is real. It is essential that they receive a fair hearing and, moreover, it must be seen by others that natural justice prevails.
Oral hearings do have a very general appeal. Claimants certainly feel more satisfied if they have direct access to those making recommendations about their future. I am sure that members of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, as they examine sworn statements, must sometimes encounter doubts which could be resolved by a simple question or brief conversation with the claimant. Our refugee policies and practices are subject to ongoing review and in fact, as has been said, a modified program of oral hearings was introduced last year in May in Montreal and in June in Toronto. In my view, that program should be extended.
However, before guaranteeing all applicants the right to a hearing, it will be necessary to take other steps to ensure that the refugee determination process, which is already very lengthy, does not become more so for refugees who want to get on with establishing their new lives in Canada.
The Geneva Convention on Refugee Status defines a refugee as a person who, by reason of a well founded fear of persecution, for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group or political opinion is, first, outside of the country of his nationality and is unable, or by reason of such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country or, second, not having a country of nationality, is outside the country of his former habitual residence and is unable, or by reason of fear, is unwilling to return to that country. This definition has, from time to time, appeared somewhat limiting, and so in Canada we have had on occasion special programs for people who did not meet the definition of the Geneva Convention on Refugee Status but who clearly were in need of special humanitarian and compassionate treatment. The refugee movements from Chile and Lebanon, for instance, are two examples of this kind.
When the new Immigration Act was written in 1976, I was Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, and the question of dealing with refugees was one on which a good deal of time and thought were spent. The determination system which was written into the Immigration Act gave the right to anyone facing removal from Canada to make a claim for refugee status. This applies not only to persons trying to enter the country but also to those who have been in Canada for any period of time as visitors. Those 1976 amendments also provided for the establishment of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee which has the authority to examine refugee claims and which is the subject of the Bill before us today.
As has been said, the 1976 amendments also give the Minister decision-making powers over the validity of claims, allow for a second evaluation of rejected claims by the Immigration Appeal Board, and allows refugee claimants the right to appeal to the courts. Until their status is finally determined, refugee claimants are able to stay in Canada. Canada does not remove or deport people waiting for determination of a refugee claim. By the time all of the avenues of appeal are exhausted, in many cases the final decision takes about three years, and in most cases applicants are allowed to work during that time.
Canada's effort in formulating and administering refugee policy is one which is a very essential reflection of Canada's humanitarian interests. Canada, on a per capita basis, has accommodated more refugees than any other country in the world. Canadians have shown the capacity to care, to reach out to those who are suffering persecution for reasons of race, religion and politics, and to give comfort to the homeless and stateless. We have also shown a concern to ensure that our institutions and administrative practices reflect those humanitarian ideals, and that, I gather, is the spirit of the Bill before us today.
However, we also have to exercise our humanitarian instincts and goals in the context of the protection of the best interests of Canada and of ensuring overall fairness in our immigration policies. Unlike other countries, Canada has not in the past faced the spectacle of large numbers of people claiming refugee status arriving at our border. Our geography, the fact that we are surrounded by sea on three sides, has provided a degree of isolation from turbulence in other lands which gives rise to large numbers of refugees. Air travel has changed that, however, and we live in times when strife and civil unrest are common. We are also living in difficult economic times. It is estimated that 70 million or 80 million people are on the move in the world. They move because of war, revolution, poverty, or simply in the hope of creating a better future for themselves and their children. Some of these people are refugees, some are not.
In February, 1982, the Government made some changes in the system of refugee determination in the interests of greater fairness and openness. The new reforms separated the refugee determination process from immigration procedures to ensure
March 16, 1984

that refugee cases were assessed on the basis of human rights considerations. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee operates on two overriding assumptions: first, the applicant is presumed to be telling the truth unless there is clear evidence to the contrary and, second, the benefit of any doubt is resolved in favour of the applicant. Under the present guidelines of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, a person need not be singled out for persecution to be a convention refugee. Highly visible political activity is not seen as a prerequisite for refugee determination. A person may be a refugee even if there is no evidence of past persecution but there are reasonable grounds to fear future persecution. The possession of a valid passport is not a basis for rejecting a refugee claim. The Refugee Status Advisory Committee now allows five panels to operate weekly. The number of private Members has been increased to ten from seven. Departmental officials who serve on the committee are now freed from all other duties in the Department so they can devote their full time to the work of the committee. The research capability has been upgraded so as to improve the information on conditions in refugee producing countries, and full use is made of information from human rights groups such as Amnesty International and church groups as well as government sources.
In May, 1983, in response to recommendations from various sources, and as part of this ongoing attempt to improve the process, a modified form of oral hearings was introduced. As the Hon. Member for Spadina said, the results are impressive. In my view, this should certainly be extended. At the same time, as we try to improve our refugee determination system, more and more of the world's people have become refugees, either from economic hardship or by virtue of war or persecution. Inevitably, people displaced in this way look to the industrialized nations for help. The channel of last resort is that provided by the asylum structures in developed countries like Canada. Even though people who come to Canada and apply for refugee status may finally be refused, the possibility of being able to work here while their claim is heard must look very attractive to people who are undergoing hardships which we can barely imagine.
The more people who use our system, the greater the backlog, the longer the delays. Since 1980 we have witnessed a very large increase in the number of refugee claimants. Recent refugee claimant arrivals-again I am talking about people who arrive in Canada and make their claim here as distinct from those who have been assessed as refugees overseas and who come to Canada with papers for permanent settlement- now average 500 a month, which is double the number for last year. About 9,500 cases are under review for appeal, yet only about one third of those who claim refugee status have their claim upheld.
It is certainly important to shorten the process, and I agree with the Hon. Member for Spadina that there is evidence that oral hearings have shortened the process. The paper screenings are sometimes cumbersome. It is important to shorten the process, particularly for genuine refugees who are left in
Immigration Act
limbo, unable to get on with establishing themselves in their profession, their trade, unable to get on with making their new life while waiting for the final decision. It is also important for those whose claims are not genuine and who may be able to find some other solution for themselves if their hopes for remaining in Canada are not to be met. So in so far as oral hearings would shorten the period of waiting and would resul-tin better decisions, I certainly recommend them, but the entire process needs to be reviewed to ensure that all problems which cause delays are dealt with.


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, regarding the legislation before the House this afternoon, namely, Bill C-219, I have a few comments to add regarding the clause in the explanatory notes, which says that the purpose of this Bill is to give persons claiming refugee status the right to be heard by the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, before it advises the Minister.
Mr. Speaker, as far as the refugee situation is concerned, I think that in Canada a great deal is being done, and I would like to give a few details. If we consider the circumstances of refugees and Canada's role as a place of refuge for the oppressed and the homeless of this world, we recall the programs set up for the Hungarians, Ugandans, Chileans, Czechoslovakians and Vietnamese, which have given Canada an international reputation. Mr. Speaker, so many people of the nationalities I just mentioned are now living in this country and have been able to tell their former fellow citizens how easy and pleasant it was to live in Canada.
However, this is not the subject of today's debate. The Bill introduced by my hon. colleague, the Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), namely Bill C-219, is aimed at protecting those who claim refugee status in Canada. It does not concern those who are selected abroad but those who, for whatever reason, entered this country either legally or illegally and are afraid to return to their country of origin because of fear of persecution. Although we do not encourage people to give these reasons for remaining in Canada, as signatories of the 1969 Convention on the Status of Refugees we are obliged to see to it that they are not sent back to their country of origin if their fear of persecution is bona fide. Mr. Speaker, we have had examples, and I am thinking of the world of sports, when two famous hockey players came to Canada in 1980-81, the Stastny brothers, who today are playing in the National Hockey League with the Quebec Nordiques. In their case, the Minister had to make a very quick decision to protect their rights and avoid a situation where they might have had problems in connection with their country of origin.
It is therefore essential that such people be given a fair hearing, while the community must also feel they have been treated fairly. First and foremost, the Government has the obligation to offer persons claiming refugee status in Canada

March 16, 1984
Immigration Act
under the terms of the Convention, an opportunity to apply for recognition of their refugee status. That is why the Refugee Status Advisory Committee, which represents the first stage, and the Immigration Appeal Board, which is the second stage, were established. Appeal Board decisions may be ratified under Section 28 of the Federal court of Appeal Act. Some of these cases, however require hearings.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to claim that the protection offered by Canada to persons claiming refugee status is unequalled anywhere else in the world. Basically, a hearing is a well-established legal procedure which offers the person claiming refugee status an opportunity to be heard, and gives the examiners a chance to assess the person's good faith. Most countries use hearings to determine whether the claim is well-founded. The Canadian system provides for selection interviews of refugees abroad, but the hearing itself is not part of the process of claiming refugee status. Both the Refugee Status advisory Committee and the Immigration Appeal Board review the certified transcripts. The IAB will hold a hearing in the event that a claim is sustained. While this Bill is under consideration, that would slow down the process, contrary to the statement made earlier by my colleague from Spadina who was complaining that it takes too much time as it is. I listened to him when he was referring to authentic refugees and to other who seek to use the system to delay their deportation from Canada. Adding a new stage would only complicate matters and we should continue to study this question.
Under the system, there are two distinct examinations and two levels of appeal, and it can take over three years before completing all stages designed to protect refugees from being forced to return to their country of origin. It is practically impossible for an authentic refugee not to have his case heard. The problem is that all applications legitimate or otherwise, must be considered at all levels. The number of people seeking the status of refugee in Canada increases every year, and it has gone from 500 in 1977 to 2,800 in 1982 and 6,300 in 1983. The system as it is today might be able to process quickly 500-odd applications a year, but it is now overburdened as a result of the ever increasing number of applications, even despite the fact that extra staff have been hired.
It can take up to 200 days before the Refugee Status Advisory Board even begins to consider an application, and that is only the first stage in the process. We now have about 9,500 cases pending, and between 1,500 and 2,000 others are waiting for processing. And yet, all decisions-


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is bad enough being neglected by not being recognized, but now I am forced to hear the hon. gentleman reading from a prepared speech.
I would like to bring your attention to what occurred in the House on March 5, this year, as reported at page 1786 of Hansard when the Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault) was in the chair. He, quite properly, brought the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) to order for reading from a prepared speech. He was adamant that that was contrary to the rules of the House, except in certain specific cases, Cabinet Ministers being one, the Leader of an Opposition Party or somebody speaking in a language which was not his own.
None of these criteria apply to the Member who is now speaking. I would request that you direct that he not read from a prepared speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member is correct. A Member is not supposed to read his speech. Nevertheless, the person making a speech is allowed to quote, at length, from whatever material he may have available to him in order to make his speech. However, the Hon. Member may take note of the complaint and attempt to read a little less.


Jean-Guy Dubois: Mr. Speaker, this point of order was raised because the Hon. Member was not recognized. If he does not rise soon enough to be seen by the Chair, that is not my problem, and as for referring to notes while making speeches, I think that it is essential in the House that we should be able to do so. I shall therefore continue to refer to my notes, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is agreeable, I can quite easily deliver my speech either way. I find it most pleasing and quite possible to make a speech without any notes. However, in specific instances, such as when refugees are concerned, as is the case of the Bill standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Spadina, a relatively important Bill which we unfortunately cannot support, it is necessary for me to have certain data about the number of refugee claimants and the decisions made in such cases. I find it normal to provide information which is as relevant as possible. This is why I use notes to address this Bill and explain why we are against it. Next time, the Hon. Member will certainly rise more quickly if he wants to be recognized by the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, a claimant who decides today to use all the legal avenues available in Canada could spend well over three years in this country before being returned to his country of origin. It is therefore quite important to make sure that those who are in Canada can express their views as provided by the legislation.
Canada is a most welcoming country. If we were to add a further avenue for appeal to those already in existence, we would only add to the many bottlenecks already slowing down the process without improving in any way on the protection now available to refugee claimants.
The only ones who would stand to gain are those who have a real stake in lengthening the process considering at least 2,000 cases are decided every year, in addition to the number of
March 16, 1984

applications which have increased over the past several years, we realize that the proposal of our hon. friend from Spadina (Mr. Heap) would only bog the system and would not help in any way those who are claiming refugee status.
The fact is that these delays are detrimental to bona fide refugees. The unfounded claims which create this jam are depriving authentic refugees of the priority they are entitled to and causing great distress. Moreover, the support organizations within the community and the various levels of government which are providing financial assistance are called upon to contribute for long periods of time by true refugees and the others, while all of them are waiting for the committee to hand down its decision.
Many initiatives have been taken these past few years to deal with the ever increasing number of claims and shorten the delays without jeopardizing the process itself in terms of equity and fairness. Thus, it is important to note, given the number of claims, that the Department is taking every possible step to process them as fast as possible and to ensure that on behalf of people who really fear to return to their own country, the Canadian Government take the appropriate steps to solve those problems as soon as possible and to bring about justice, equity and fairness for all citizens.
Therefore, a pilot project of hearings has been implemented in May 1983 in Montreal, and in Toronto in June of the same year. It is a pilot project because first of all, the legislation does not provide for that procedure and also because on one knows whether in such a large country as ours, an effective hearing system along those lines could be implemented at a reasonable cost.
Immigration Act
There are many reasons for putting to the test this kind of hearing. When a particular claim is to be examined and when the decision is to be based on the very facts of the case, on their consistency with known events and, more important still, on the credibility of the claimant, the best procedure is to submit the claimant to a hearing during which the validity of his claim can be assessed.
The fact that the claimant was not personally heard has always given rise to criticism from the very moment Canada started considering refugee status claims. Unfortunately, this criticism has not subsided during the recent yers. And considering the number of people involved, certainly a great number of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, would like the process to be accelerated even more.
Finally, various interest groups as well as a working group set up by the Minister concluded in 1981 that, within the appropriate framework, some kind of hearing could prove more effective than the present system, which involves a great amount of paperwork.
Mr. Speaker, here are the objectives of the pilot projects commissioned by the former Minister .. . May I point out that it is now five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next, at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 19, 1984