1984-02-13

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 10, 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. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned on Friday, I had just nicely gotten into the substance of my speech. I had made the point that discussions with my constituents and other people had shown that the primary concern that Canadians have about this Bill relates to their total lack of trust in the present Government. I can understand why that mistrust exists.
There is no doubt that Canadians trust the RCMP and believe that the current Liberal Government let the RCMP down concerning all of the events that occurred in the early 1970s with the FLQ and separatism threat in Quebec. I was arguing that the Government has given much evidence that it cannot be trusted. People can remember the wage and price control promise and the gas taxes that were not going to rise but then rose enormously. People from the east and west remember that first constitutional proposal that would have forever in our constitutional history locked an absolute veto into two provinces, leaving out the other eight provinces and all other new provinces. That provision ultimately had to be removed from the Constitution because it violated that sense of fairness which Canadians possess. But this too has built up this perception of mistrust in the present Liberal Government.
I am sure you were as horrified as I, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood in the House last week and said that he saw no problem at all with the Prime Minister's Office personally handling extreme patronage in cases where Liberal Members of Parliament were allocated $500,000 each but not members of the Opposition. We must have an enormous gap between what the Prime Minister
believes his role should be and what I as a Member believe. I think the Prime Minister should stand up and defend the whole country and the interests of all the people, even though in some parts they have not elected members of his Party. You cannot get around the fact, Mr. Speaker, that when the Prime Minister came to power he had 27 members in the west. Now he has none. He did not lose those seats because people in the west are perverse, nor did he lose them because there was anything wrong with the Constitution. He lost those seats because of the policies of his Government.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Evans:: How many do you have in Quebec?


Blaine Allen Thacker: When the Conservative Party meets those regional perceptions and needs of the people of Quebec, we will get members there as the next election will show. By the same token, the Liberal Party has to meet the needs of the people of the west if it expects to get members elected there. That is why I am saying the Prime Minister, in occupying the highest office of the land, surely has a duty to go out of his way to make sure those people feel comfortable. He has not done that. That is why he lost those seats in the west and that is why he will lose the next election.
I suppose I should come back to the major question as to whether we need a security service at all. That question was answered many, many years ago in the affirmative after the Second World War. We have a major security service within the RCMP. We have some important equipment in the Department of National Defence. Security work is being done. The question is whether that security service should remain within the RCMP or moved and set up as a civilian agency.
We have been told, and we all know, that other countries have separate civilian agencies. I am thinking of the United States and the United Kingdom. The United Kindgom has a separate service despite its long historical attachment to Scotland Yard, just as our attachment is to the RCMP. The question is whether there is something unique or something that has changed within Canada that makes it imperative we move the service away from the RCMP and into a private civilian agency. The people who want this separation argue it is because of police barn burning and incidents where the police actually broke the law and therefore we should have a separate civilian agency with checks and balances.
That argument does not wash generally in the west. People believe the RCMP were betrayed by the Government. They believe that the highest ranking authority in the Liberal Cabinet told the RCMP to get the FLQ, to get behind it and find out all the evidence so they could get a handle on it. When the RCMP broke the law and were caught, was there minis-

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
terial responsibility? Was there any form of political acknowledgement that the politicians were at fault even to the slightest degree? Not one bit, Mr. Speaker. A commission was set up and millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars were spent all in the whitewash of political forces. We all know in our daily affairs and understanding of human beings that the RCMP would not have unilaterally and on its own committed that whole series of breaches if it did not have direction, authority and tacit approval from the government of the day. That is why Canadians believe the agency should remain with the force. People feel that the security service was betrayed and there was no such thing as ministerial responsibility.
Contrast our form of government, which is a responsible form of government where ministers are responsible-which we do not have-to that in the United Kingdom, the mother of Parliament. There ministers resign regularly because of errors and faults that occur within their departments. The rule of law and our form of government insists that the minister should resign. The Carrington affair, I suppose, is the classic one. A telegram arrived from the Falklands suggesting that there might be some activity in Argentina. No reasonable person would have acted differently from what the minister did. Yet when the Argentinians attacked, the minister was the first one to stand and say: "I know you would not blame me". Nevertheless ministerial responsibility insisted as a tradition that he step down, and he did so with great pride. That is what is lacking in this Government.
The second bottom line issue is that if there is a security agency, be it a civilian body or if it remains with the RCMP, what types of changes do we have to bring forth in order to balance the rights and fundamental freedoms won as a result of the battles fought and the lives sacrificed by our ancestors and be able as a state to collect information and get at security agents who we know are out there? We have an enormous Russian embassy and there are embassies of other governments as well which are looking into our internal affairs. Their goal is to undermine our very way of life. So we require the agency but we must have very careful discussions.
At some point this Bill has to go to committee. It cannot be decided upon quickly, as the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) pointed out. Today is the second day that elected Members have had to discuss this entire issue. The Government claims that people have been discussing it for 15 years. It went to a Senate committee where over 40 changes were made to the original proposal. Nonetheless, this is only the second time it has been discussed in the House. We know from past experience that it takes several weeks, once the debate has commenced here, for Canadians to think about the issue generally and to get their views back to us as their elected representatives so that we can come to some conclusion as to how we should go. This is why I think there has to be a reasonable debate in the House on second reading and why the Bill has to go to committee. We have to get the experts back and have their views on the new proposals in Bill C-9. The
proposals are so different it is as if they have no relationship at all to the first proposal the Government brought forth.
As I looked through the Bill, I had some problems with the question of the mandate, whether it is actually clear enough. I would like to hear from the experts whether it is possible to have a definition of "espionage", for example, which is more precise than what is in the existing Bill, or what we really mean by "threats to the security of Canada". If it were ever taken to be an attack upon the possibility of a regional party being formed, such as the Parti Quebecois, the Western Canada Concept or the Social Credit, I would be concerned because I believe it is wise for those regional alienations and those senses of frustration to be able to crystalize in a party which can then come to Parliament. Most often those parties are absorbed into the mainstream. I would cite the Progressives in the early part of this century and, more latterly, the Social Credit Party and the Creditistes. If they were somehow seen to be a threat to the security of Canada, I would be very concerned. I think we ought to look at that.
I honestly do not understand why only the Statistics Act has been exempted from the provisions of the Bill. I would like to ask many questions on that. Primarily, I want to be totally convinced that we are setting up, if the Government forces it through, an agency for which there will be ministerial responsibility. Just as the rule of law is fundamental, just as we have the right to responsible government, I want to have the right of ministerial responsibility. I will be looking at the Bill from that perspective.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the remarks of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). At the conclusion of his speech, he indicated that he felt it was important that there be proper ministerial control and accountability over this important agency. Does the Hon. Member support the recommendation of the McDonald Commission which called for a parliamentary oversight committee similar to those in existence in West Germany and the United States to ensure parliamentary oversight of the activities of the new security agency?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that as a matter of principle, starting from a blank sheet, that would be a position that I would argue strongly as well. I think it should come from a group of people who are responsible to the people at large. When I say ministerial responsibility, I mean responsible not only to the Cabinet but to this House; but if it were in a committee of us, we are responsible to the people. If we do something wrong and they feel that it is wrong, they can turf us out. We have accountability every four years, or five years in the case of the existing Government. As a matter of principle, I agree. If we are going to move from that principle, I would want to be able to understand the good reasons and argument as to why it should go to a review committee of retired Privy Councillors, for example.
February 13, 1984


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask my colleague a question. The United States and Great Britain have separate security forces. One item that has been brought to my attention is that spies are able to get into those services and carry out fifth column activities. I would like to ask my legal friend whether he thinks there is a greater danger of fifth columnists getting into a separate security force than there is into the RCMP security force.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, 1 suppose it should not be necessarily so, but I think in fact it would be. A new agency would not have those long decades and decades of tradition that the RCMP has. The RCMP has a quasi-military background. You have total military discipline and the RCMP has a quasi-discipline. If you set up a civilian agency, it will not have any of that. Some people cast aside traditions very easily. 1 do not believe that traditions are there lightly; they have been built up over many generations. There is a high standard to which the RCMP hold themselves accountable. The men are imbued with that from the first day they take their training, whether it is in Regina or in the east. As such, I do not think we should lightly overthrow that for some new civilian agency which will have none of that background and tradition.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I take it that if the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills were in fact drafting legislation in this area, he would not create a civilian security service but rather would maintain the security service within the present structure of the RCMP. Would that be a correct conclusion?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That would always be my starting point for sure. There is no need to change that tradition. They have been doing well. It is just those events in Quebec. As I say, most of the people I talk to, and my own reading on the subject, indicates that the RCMP were actually betrayed by the government of the day. They were led into getting that evidence, sometimes illegally. When they were caught at it, the politicians got themselves off and there was no ministerial or Cabinet accountability. My people believe that. 1 believe that. Therefore, why should we move it out?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to make a couple of comments. 1 notice that my Hon. friend from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been participating in this debate as the sole participant of his Party with respect to these issues. I am curious with respect to whether the NDP have any position on this Bill. For example, I recall on a number of issues that there has been what I call a swallowing of themselves on the part of the NDP on justice and legal affairs issues. I think back to when my colleague from Burnaby spoke on behalf of his Party with respect to the prostitution issue. His position as then stated was that he wanted to set up red light districts across the country. As soon as he uttered those words on an open line show in Vancouver, the Jack Webster Show, of course there was horror and dismay in the office of his Leader. Not only that, there was a reversal of that position taken by the-
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, 1 believe comments and questions are supposed to be directed towards the content of the speech just made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I was going to caution that this should not develop into questioning between other Members. Nevertheless, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is entitled to make comments. If as a result there is some response to the comments, this is within the purview of the question period.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member got up. I know there is great sensitivity, but I was simply saying that the Hon. Member for Burnaby spoke on behalf of his Party and said that this Government proposal was an absolutely ideal Bill and there were no difficulties at all as far as the NDP was concerned. Two weeks later, of course, the justice critic of that Party was reversing that position; they had various serious concerns with respect to the legislation. I am concerned about that because, as we have seen, as soon as the Hon. Member for Burnaby stands up and states a particular position, his Leader is usually there at the forefront in order to reverse that position.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously entertaining to watch the spectacle of the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West, but I would draw the rules to the attention of the Chair. Clearly any questions or comments must relate to the speech made in the preceding 20-minute period. For the Chair to suggest otherwise, I say with respect, flies in the face of that particular rule. Otherwise, a Member would be entitled to wander at random to any subject that he or she chose. The clear intent of that particular provision is to follow up, with either comments or questions, the immediately preceding speech.
I am not going to comment with respect to the veracity of my learned colleague because, of course, there is no foundation whatsoever to his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I understand full well the point of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. However, I might suggest that following the remarks of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) the Hon. Member for Burnaby rose and himself put questions which probably led to the comments of another Member. In the sense that this is all part of the debate following other remarks of the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills, I do not see a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not understand the sensitivity. I will only attribute it to the fact that it is Monday morning, and after a weekend out in their ridings the members of the NDP would naturally be sensitive with respect to their electoral or other prospects.


Mr. de Jong:: You are not going to be in the Cabinet either, Ray.

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. Even if it is Monday morning, we had better bring the proceedings back to normal.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I wanted to explain, Mr. Speaker, if I may-


Simon Leendert de Jong: You have a lot to explain.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -that the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills made what I thought was a very constructive contribution to this debate. I wanted to find out whether or not we are going to get any participation from the NDP-


Simon Leendert de Jong: Sit and watch. Take your seat and listen.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, these people are absolutely out of control today. I do not know what they have eaten on the weekend, but they simply cannot keep still. I am trying to be helpful to them. I have spent my whole political career trying to be helpful to the NDP, and have given them advice and assistance. What do they do? They reciprocate by yelling at me when I am trying to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. 1 think under the circumstances it would be just as well if we continued with the debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate having the opportunity the Conservative Party has given me to speak on this Bill. Usually three members of the Conservative Party speak in between each member of the New Democratic Party but the Conservatives do not seem to have as much interest in this Bill as they should. Perhaps that can be attributed, as you have said, to the fact that this is a Monday morning. However, I appreciate the opportunity to try to make a case to my fellow Members of Parliament and to the Canadian public about why the Bill should not pass.
As I read it, the underlying principle of the Bill is that a free and democratic society in Canada can best be protected by a security service with extraordinary powers to pry into the lives of ordinary citizens and that such a security service does not even need to be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That is the underlying principle of the Bill as I interpret some of the clauses and the absence of certain clauses.
To understand why the Bill is so unacceptable to this Party, we must go back to 1976-77 when Canada was rocked by a series of revelations about illegal action on the part of the security service within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The shock that Canadians felt at this illegality was matched only by their disgust as the Government's attempts to stonewall the issue. Not a single Cabinet Minister or Government backbencher had the gumption to speak out against this betrayal of trust by those charged with protecting our liberties and safeguarding our democratic society.
It was revealed that there had been cases of illegal barn burning, stealing dynamite, breaking into press agencies, breaking into democratic party offices and so on. When the heat became too intense for the Government, it finally appointed a royal commission, a tried and true method of diffusing public attention from a scandal. It was widely felt at the time that the commission would do nothing more than cover up. The McDonald Commission was the most expensive royal commission in Canadian history to that point, costing some $15 million. When it finally reported in January, 1981 the Government sat on the report until August 25, and then issued it along with two additional papers which disputed certain of the commission's findings.
To date there has been no government action against any of the law-breaking by members of the security service. We get conflicting testimony from two Ministers so we are not even sure whether any internal discipline has been taken against those members of the RCMP who violated internal regulations.
The report of the McDonald Commission was not by any stretch of the imagination a high water mark for civil liberties in Canada. The commission did mostly what it was instructed to do; or, rather, it did mostly what it was supposed to do for the Liberal Government but did look at a number of actions which it thought may have been illegal and in which prosecution may have been warranted.
Even this mild criticism of the security service and of the Government was too much for the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). When the report was released to the public he issued a statement in which he said:
Both the Department of Justice and independent outside legal counsel have considered very carefully the criticism of the RCMP's lack of respect for the law. On numerous occasions the Commission criticizes conduct that it describes as not specifically authorized by law. It is the opinion of the Department of Justice and independent counsel that unless conduct is prohibited either at common law or by legislation it is not unlawful, and in proper circumstances conduct not specifically authorized by law may be necessary and appropriate.
This is an important principle to keep in mind when you look at Bill C-9, because in a number of situations the Bill falls short of the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, which, as I say, was not in any way a high water mark for civil liberties in Canada.
For example, at page 1071 of the report, recommendation No. 17 advises administrative guidelines concerning the principles to be applied and the use of undercover operators by the Security Intelligence Agency. It says that these guidelines should be approved by the Solicitor General and publicly disclosed. I should like to draw attention particularly to the suggested guidelines 17(e), (f) and (g), which read as follows: (e) undercover operatives must not be used for the purpose of disrupting domestic groups unless there is reason to believe such a group is involved in espionage, sabotage or foreign interference;
(0 undercover operatives should be instructed not to act as agents provocateurs and, in situations where they become aware of plans for violent activity, to do what they can to persuade the members of a group to adopt milder methods of protest;
(g) interviews of persons for security screening purposes should not be used as occasions for recruiting such persons as sources-
February 13, 1984

I should like to suggest in view of the Minister's comments that whatever is not specifically prohibited can be allowed; that clauses such as these should be specifically written into the Bill before it is passed into law. At page 1078, the report has some suggestions regarding by-product information that is found as a result of investigations looking for other material, that it should be closely monitored to ensure that investigations are not being misdirected for a purpose irrelevant to the security of Canada and that the use of by-product information has to be closely watched to make sure that it is not used for other purposes.
Recommendation No. 33 reads as follows:
We recommend that the legislation governing the security intelligence agency include a clause which expressly denies the agency any authority to carry out
measures to enforce security.
I did not find a clause such as that in Bill C-9, Mr. Speaker. Recommendation No. 37 reads as follows:
We recommend that the security intelligence agency not be permitted to disseminate information or misinformation in order to disrupt or otherwise inflict damage on Canadian citizens or domestic political organizations.
I do not find anything in the Bill to prohibit that kind of
activity.
Recommendations Nos 49 and 50 suggest that there should be guidelines for relations with foreign security agencies which, as you know, are tied into this legislation so that information collected about Canadians can be passed on to foreign security agencies. The McDonald Commission at least suggested that guidelines should be developed in that area. But there is nothing to that effect in the legislation, and given the Minister's statement that anything not specifically prohibited can be permitted, I think it should be written in.
On Friday, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) tried to get an answer to this question from the Parliamentary Secretary. He asked if the Government was going to be making public the names of those agencies of other countries with which the security service will exchange information. The Parliamentary Secretary answered "I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker". We are not even going to know the names of the other agencies let alone the kind of information that is being passed on to them.
We have the same situation with regard to accountability. On page 1100 the McDonald report recommends a three-member advisory council whose appointment would have to be approved by Parliament. In other words, the Government would have to come before the House and the Senate with the names of the appointees and there could be a debate and question raised if some of those appontees were not suitable.
Clause 35 of Bill C-9 refers to a Security Intelligence Review Committee. The Leaders of the Opposition Parties would be consulted about the members of that committee but it would not be referred to Parliament. We all know how little such consultation can be in some circumstances. I feel we should at least be looking at the recommendation of the McDonald Commission that the names must come before Parliament for approval.
Security Intelligence Service
With respect to the powers of the two committees, the report of the McDonald Commission suggests that there should be full access to all documents. As has been pointed out, this Bill restricts access to Cabinet documents so that members of the security service could in fact have access to some Cabinet documents; but the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which is to oversee them, would not have access to those documents.
Section (g) of Recommendation 180 of the McDonald Commission report suggests that the advisory council should report to a joint parliamentary committee on security and intelligence at least annually on the following:
(i)	the extent and prevalence of improper and illegal activities by members of the security and intelligence agency-
(ii)	any direction given by the Government of Canada, to the security intelligence agency or any other federal organization collecting intelligence by covert means, which the Council regards as improper;
(iii)	any serious problems in interpreting or administering the statute governing the security intelligence agency.
This recommendation ties in parliamentary accountability to a much greater extent than Bill C-9, in which Clause 53 simply requires a report by the advisory council to the Minister, who then tables that report in Parliament; and we do not know if Parliament has any right to discuss it.
Section 184 at page 1102 of the McDonald Commission report calls for the appointment of a joint parliamentary committee which would have the power to consider the estimates of the proposed security service. We do not have any of those powers in the present Bill, Mr. Speaker. When the McDonald Commission introduced its report, it said that all the recommendations were tied together. On page 405 of that report it is stated:
To accept the recommendation as to the kinds of activities about which the agency should be empowered to collect intelligence, without implementing the recommendations as to scrutiny and control by the Minister, Parliament, and the independent review body would be dangerous. To accept the recommendations about relationships between the agency and the agencies of foreign countries without the same regime of scrutiny or oversight would be dangerous.
We have a royal commission which cost the Canadian public $15 million and which says that unless we have those built-in safeguards, we are getting into a dangerous situation. That is precisely what we have with Bill C-9.
The Tories say they are opposed to this Bill. I wonder how much they are opposed. In Brecht's play, Mother Courage and Her Children, one of the characters says: "It's unjust and I won't stand for it". Mother Courage replies: "How long won't you stand for it? An hour? A day? A week?" I would like to ask the Tories how long will they not stand for this Bill. How long will they oppose it? Will they put up one speaker to every New Democratic Party speaker or are they going to insist upon their full complement of three speakers to every New Democratic Party speaker? Let us see how strongly the Tories oppose it.
The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) spoke on the Bill on Friday. I was interested to read what he


SO 148-5 COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
said, and I quote from page 1289 of Hansard, February 10, 1984:
If this Bill had been proposed years ago by Prime Minister St. Laurent or Prime Minister Diefenbaker, I suggest that it would have been much better received because Canadians then had a central trust and belief that the Government would do what is right under the circumstances. They do not have that trust today. Hopefully after an election and a change of government there can be a whole new group of persons in the Cabinet who will lead to that restoration of trust so that the Bill could be brought back at that time.
In other words, the Tories are saying: "It would be wrong to buy this used car from the Liberals, but it is okay to buy it from us because you can trust us". The Canadian people know how far they can trust the Conservative Party. In the fall of 1982, the present Leader of that Party was swearing allegiance to the Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) and at the same time he was plotting to bushwhack him in Winnipeg. We know how far we can trust the Tories-about as far as the Liberals.
The McDonald Commission identifies three essential requirements of democracy on page 408 of its report: first, responsible Government; second, the rule of law; and third, freedom of legitimate political dissent. The report states:
These, we would emphasize, are requirements of democracy. As requirements they are not to be compromised, whittled down, or balanced off to make effective security possible.
Bill C-9, Mr. Speaker, allows the Government not to be responsible. It allows it not to have to answer to Parliament for its security service. As far as the rule of law is concerned, we have seen the Government flagrantly turn a blind eye to what has happened in the past. There has been no prosecution of past lawbreakers and this has brought the whole of the law into contempt with the Canadian people because they see there is one law for one group of people and another law for another.
On page 409 of its report the commission states:
The third requirement-democratic dissent-is perhaps the most difficult to maintain because its observance requires such careful judgment. Still, we believe that the distinction can be made between, on the one hand, those who wish to overthrow our democratic system or use violence or threats of violence to violate our democratic procedures, and on the other hand, those who seek radical change in our social, economic or political arrangements within our democratic system.
In the past, the security service did not make that distinction. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there are elements in this Bill which do not make that distinction either.
The Minister spoke of a sense of urgency, a sense of needing to get this Bill passed in a hurry. This is phony. Where was the urgency in the 1970s when there was growing evidence of security service crimes? Where was the urgency of the Government to act then? It stonewalled, it obfuscated and, finally, it appointed a royal commission, hoping to bury the issue. Senator Pitfield urged quick passage of Bill C-9 when he was interviewed on January 24. He said: "We have to show people that our parliamentary system works".
I want to submit, Mr. Speaker, that we have to show the people of Canada that our parliamentary system works by defeating this Bill. The mandate it gives to the security service is too broad. It does not have the built-in kind of checks and balances and accountability to Parliament which are necessary. It is a dangerous intrusion into the lives of ordinary citizens and it undermines the foundation of our democracy. I urge all Hon. Members to join with my Party in opposing and defeating this Bill.
Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member this. I understand his dissatisfaction with the present statute. However, when he calls for the Bill to be blocked and in effect urges a filibuster by inviting the Conservatives to go to the limit to keep this Bill from being passed, does he not realize that what he is doing is preserving present arrangements? He is providing for the continuation of the security service which we now have.


Mr. Blackburn:: That is political blackmail. This is in the House of Commons.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member calls it political blackmail, but it happens to be the fact. We have a security service now. It has a mandate now. It does not report to Parliament now. It operates without judicial warrants now. It has very broad powers for which it does not account to Parliament.
The Government wants to change that situation. While the Hon. Member would like to see us go further, surely he should agree that the responsible thing to do is to take this legislation forward, not block it or defeat it, subject it to the normal parliamentary process, and see if their brains can make it a better Bill. I doubt it, but I am certainly willing to be convinced. How can they say that they are concerned about the privacy and civil liberties of Canadians and still want to prevent a Bill which is an improvement from moving forward?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, there is very serious question whether this Bill is an improvement in any sense. For the first time there is now authorization for mail opening, apart from narcotic issues. There is access to income tax records. I do not believe that this Bill does represent a real improvement over the present unsatisfactory status quo. We want to see things changed in the status quo as well, but I do not think it is an answer just to talk about bringing in this Bill and passing it. There are not adequate safeguards and parliamentary responsibility in it. The House would be most derelict if it passed this legislation in its present form. We simply cannot agree to going along with legislation which does not have built-in accountability to Parliament and which allows such wide and sweeping changes.
This is the first time in 15 years, Mr. Speaker, that there has even been a full debate on this subject. I hope that all Members in our Party, the Conservative Party, and perhaps some Liberals, might get interested in this subject and put their remarks on record.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, it was not clear from the Hon. Member's speech whether he was arguing against the separation of the security services from the RCMP as a matter of principle, or whether he would find that under certain circumstances, with the proper checks and balances, that would be an
February 13, 1984

appropriate move for the country at this time. Would he clarify that point?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite correct. That was not the point of my argument. I was not arguing on one side or the other of that question. I was arguing that the present law is introducing a security service that has wide powers which are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. That is the basis of our opposition of this Bill and what we want the House to focus upon.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the Hon. Member would give me his view. In my speech I said this type of Bill could have been brought forward by earlier Prime Ministers and the concept would have been accepted because there was a greater trust in government. I believe the lack of trust is unique to the Government in force today. A future government with new players could bring in the principle of separating the security service from the RCMP and placing it in a civilian agency, with proper checks and balances. If a civilian agency had the proper checks and balances, including parliamentary review, would the Hon. Member support that move?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, we would want to see the Bill and debate it on its merits. We are debating this Bill which does not have those proper checks and balances and which give powers we believe should not belong to any security service.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to comment and ask a question of my colleague. Since thq Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) has brought it up, I cannot resist commenting that we certainly await with interest the comments of the distinguished official spokesperson for the Conservative Party on the question of whether the security service should in fact maintain its responsibility for security operations in Canada, or whether instead there should be a civilian security service established. I know that my colleague from Lethbridge-Foothills would be most interested in asking that question of his colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), the former justice critic for the Conservative Party and former chairperson of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee of the Conservative Party's Caucus Committee. I am sure that former justice critic and former chairperson would be most interested in enlightening the House on this important question.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the former justice critic for the New Democratic Party who is now the consumer affairs critic for that Party. Obviously he could not be trusted with that job. In fairness to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) I want to comment on the closing comments of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


An Hon. Member:: I thought you were a Christian!


Benno Friesen: I am. In his closing remarks the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands mentioned that the Minis-
Security Intelligence Service
ter wanted to end this debate quickly and get the Bill to committee. I have been reading the Minister's speech. While I enjoy criticizing the Minister myself, in all fairness that is not one of the things he said in his speech. He did say we need to debate it and pass it, but I do not think he made reference to passing it quickly. In his closing comments on page 1275 of Hansard, the Minister said:
We can give the people of this country clear statutory assurance that their rights and freedoms will be respected, or we can leave our security intelligence system in a prolonged state of uncertainty, with no legislative framework, no public mandate, no judicial approval role, no independent or external review; in short, none of the safeguards we all believe are important to the rights and freedoms we enjoy in this society.
There are two things which I would like to mention at the outset. The Minister did not say he was in a hurry to pass this Bill, even though he may well be. I can imagine that as Minister he would like to see it go to committee quickly. The reason he did not say it may be that he may not have complete Caucus support for the legislation itself. I have a statement here by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who, speaking on the program House on the Hill, on CJOH-TV on January 29, said:
It's not the kind of topic six months or eight months before an election that is really very high on the priority; you just don't, I guess, win an election with the passage of that kind of a bill. It's very ... it's controversial on the one hand; on the other hand it's lacklustre in terms of public appeal. So I don't sense very much of a pressure on the part of the caucus, be it on the Quebec side or the rest of the Liberal caucus, to have this bill passed expeditiously.
I think we are owed an explanation from the Minister as to where his Caucus stands on this legislation. Does he enjoy Caucus support? Are they going to co-operate with him to get it into committee? Once it is in committee, what kind of support and unanimity does the Liberal Caucus have? Could it be that the Chairman of the Justice Committee is speaking on behalf of a significant section of his Caucus when he says there is no urgency to this legislation? If that is the case, I hope there will be enough freedom in that Caucus to speak boldly about their concerns.
I hope there will not be an experience such as we had when we were dealing with the Time and Reader's Digest legislation when the former Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Simma Holt, who had been a loyal member of that committee, was not allowed to serve on it. You, Mr. Speaker, were sitting on the Secretary of State Committee at that time and had been sitting on that committee for two years and were bumped from it because the Government knew you opposed the legislation it was presenting at that time.
When the committee sits to discuss this legislation, I hope that the Government will have a hands-off position in terms of the membership of the Justice Committee so that Government members sitting on the committee can debate and speak openly about this legislation.
I am also disturbed by the quotation I just read regarding the Minister's point of view. Since it is true that this issue has been debated for 15 years, the most obvious question is why.

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
If, as the Solicitor General points out, we can leave our security system in a prolonged state of uncertainty with no legislative framework, no public mandate, no judicial approval role, no independent or external review-in short, none of the safeguards we all believe are important to the rights and freedoms we enjoy in this society-the simple question is why has this been going on for 15 years? If the Government is concerned about civil and human rights, why has it waited 15 years to give legislative approval to the activities of a security service, be it part of the RCMP or a separate service? The security service itself is not even germane to the most residual question: Why have we waited 15 years to protect the rights of Canadian citizens? Why have there been barn burnings? Why have political offices been ransacked? Why have Canadians been vulnerable to those kinds of activities? Those are questions the Solicitor General must answer. The Government must be accountable.
As the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) said, if this legislation had been introduced verbatim by a previous Government, such as the St. Laurent Government, the Diefenbaker Government or the Pearson Government, it probably would have raised very few eyebrows because there was a sense of confidence in those Governments and the leadership at that time.
The problem we face today is a crisis of confidence in the leadership of the Government. It is not only incompetence that bothers us, though there are plenty of examples of rank incompetence by the Government. What really bothers the Canadian people is that the Government enjoys the use of power. Since it derives so much pleasure from power, there is no discipline, constraint or self-control in the use of power.
1 suggest there are several very clear examples of that. The first is Bill C-157, the predecessor to Bill C-9. We must ask why Bill C-157 contained such expansive powers. Why did it have such loosely defined roles for the security service and why were the definitions so broad? I presume it is because the Government takes pleasure in having as much power as possible. That is the crux of the distrust that the people of Canada have in the Government.
The second reason is that legislation is debated outside of the Chamber in too many cases. We do not have to go back more than two years to recall our experience regarding the Crow legislation. In that case the Bill was contemplated, discussed and announced in major centres all over Canada but never presented in the House. It was never presented in the House until two days before the debate was scheduled. That seems to be the pattern of the Government.
I should commend the Minister for tabling Bill C-157. It was circulated and we were able to debate it outside the Chamber and the public was able to examine the intentions of the Government. Because of that public scrutiny, the former Bill finally had to go to the Senate committee for study and recommendations. That committee roundly condemned the Bill and gutted it. That let to the presentation of a new version of the Bill.
There is no confidence in the Government because it enjoys power. It takes pleasure in power and therefore has very little self-control in its use.
For my final example, 1 will return to a favourite theme of mine. I say that ironically. That is the Emergency Planning Order of 1981, No. 1305. While the Order in Council is divided into peacetime and wartime powers, the entire Order in Council is covered by a Crown prerogative provision, not statutory limitations.
The peacetime provisions are covered largely by federal-provincial agreements. Therefore, why is it necessary to cover peacetime arrangements with a Crown prerogative to let the Prime Minister do whatever he wishes? Since federal-provincial agreements cover most of the situations relating to peacetime emergency arrangements, why should Crown prerogative cover that particular provision? Again, the only conclusion I can draw is that the Government takes pleasure in having as much power as possible in the event it might be able to use it.
The more disturbing aspect concerns wartime provisions. In order to be accurate, let me refer to Part II of that schedule of powers in the Emergency Planning Order. Under the powers assigned to the Solicitor General of Canada are items 6 and 7. Item 6 is the power to "Establish, administer and operate civilian internment camps". Item 7 is to "Facilitate the selective reduction and transfer of prison populations to provide for the establishment of civilian internment camps".
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, where is the logic? The Minister stood in the House on Friday to say that we need to proscribe the activities of the civilian service and limit it by statute very carefully. But there is a provision whereby he can release from penitentiaries criminals who have been put in prison because they have violated the Criminal Code in order to make room for people who have never violated the Criminal Code. What is the logic behind making it possible for any government to release convicted prisoners in order to make room for people who have not been convicted? The only conclusion can be that the Government enjoys having a wide expanse of powers.
The reason there is so much distrust in the Government is that it has had a poor record. While incompetence and bungling is enough reason for Canadians to want to unload the Government, the greatest reason is distrust.
With respect to the issue of quick passage of legislation, I recall the Solicitor General coming to me just over a year ago to ask for quick passage of mandatory supervision provisions. He wanted a one-day debate because he could not get House time for any legislation other than economic legislation. That particular Bill was sent to the Senate which again shot it down in flames. When the Government wants quick passage of legislation which is rejected after close scrutiny by the Senate, why should there be a short debate on any legislation? I do not even have to talk about what the Government is doing in Revenue Canada and its pleasure and power there. All I have to do is remind Hon. Members that the legislative record of this Government is enough to create suspicion and, therefore, close examination and scrutiny of all legislation it tables is required.
February 13, 1984

1 would like to look at some of the provisions of the Bill which raise questions for us. I want to note with particular attention the provisions in Bill C-157. Clause 14(2) of Bill C-157 stated that the security service is not restricted from "remaining informed" about the political, economic and social environment within Canada. The Senate committee pointed out very clearly that that was a provision which would open the door to mischief and therefore would heap scorn on that. Let me turn to Clause 12(2) of the present legislation, which provides:
Nothing in this Act restricts the Service from remaining informed, through public sources of information, about the political, economic and social environment within Canada and matters affecting that environment.
There you have it, Mr. Speaker; nothing is changed. The Senate says get rid of it. The Minister keeps it. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, will the security service, when looking through the public sources of information, be reading newspaper articles about all of the citizens of Canada? To what kind of clipping service will the security service subscribe? On whom will the security service keep files? Should it be that we have exactly the same provision in this legislation and powers sweeping enough rather than restrictive enough? For the security of the public we need provisions that are proscriptive enough, not sweeping enough.
1 come to Clause 14 of the present Bill which reads:
The Service may advise any Minister of the Crown on matters relating to the security of Canada that are relevant to the exercise of any power or the performance of any duty or function by that Minister under the Citizenship Act or the Immigration Act, 1976.
Why should the security service report to "any" Minister of the Crown? 1 thought the buck stopped at the Solicitor General. Is the security service now going to report to the Minister of Employment and Immigration? Is the security service going to report to the Minister of National Revenue? I thought the Solicitor General was accountable. What goes on, Mr. Speaker?
I am concerned about certain provisions. Let us take a look at Clause 21. I have a simple question. There seems to be a provision whereby the Solicitor General would have final approval over whether search warrants would be issued. Since he became Solicitor General four years ago, how many times has the Solicitor General turned down a request for a search warrant? Has he turned down any of the hundreds of requests that 1 am sure he has had? How many has he turned down?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. May I draw to the attention of Hon. Members that Members are not supposed to walk between the line of vision of the Member speaking and the Chair.


Benno Friesen: I did not particularly notice that, Mr. Speaker. I know the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) does not know the difference between a union hall and the House of Commons so I expect that kind of behaviour.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Security Intelligence Service


Benno Friesen: I did want to close with three particular provisions mentioned in an article that I read and which was written ten years ago. It is entitled "The Relationship Between Secret Services and Government in a Modern State". It was written by a Briton and the Brits understand the secret service because they have bungled it often enough. Therefore, they ought to know something about it. This person makes eight points that are very clear. I want to introduce just the first three and then I will be through. I know you are getting nervous, Mr. Speaker. First, he says:
-the operational front of secret operations should be as narrow as possible.
My concern with this legislation is that it is as wide as possible. The second point reads:
-intelligence requirements and priorities, both overt and secret, must be laid down at the national and political level, and never at the departmental-ministerial level.
I am concerned about this level. It is not fulfilling this proscription. The third point reads:
-to keep the collation of intelligence separate from collection: and ensure that ultimate collation on major matters is undertaken at the national level.
It is all important that we separate collection and collation. Therefore, I think we need to examine this legislation very carefully.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) with respect to the powers he referred to, certainly the expansive powers under Bill C-157. In view of the severe criticism which the Hon. Member has levelled against the provisions of Bill C-157-I know he indicated that he personally gave a speech in Toronto criticizing some of the provisions in Bill C-157-could he enlighten the House why it was that both his Leader and the official spokesperson for his Party refused to take any position whatever on that legislation during the entire time it was tabled in the House?


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I would think that I am just a burned out English professor. I would not think in such clinical terms as the experienced lawyer from Burnaby. He does not draw very clear distinctions. When I said last Friday that I spoke in Toronto, I spoke on Bill C-157, not on the present legislation. I would like the Hon. Member to understand the difference there.
With respect to our spokesman on the legislation and our Leader, I will let them speak for themselves.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, before asking my question, I would like to express my appreciation to the Hon. Member for stating accurately the position I took in my speech about wanting the Bill to be passed but not calling on Parliament to pass it in a speedy way or without the care such an important matter deserves.
In view of that, would his Party and the NDP be prepared to consider and be agreeable, because of the importance of the subject and also because of the realistic timetable we face in the remaining months of this Parliament, instead of referring the Bill to the Justice Committee, which the motion I placed

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
before the House calls for, to a special committee, perhaps a committee of ten members? They might not be bogged down by the normal business of the Justice Committee-for instance, the estimates, the divorce Bill, the Criminal Code amending Bills which are very important and which may be referred to the Justice Committee. Would the Conservative Party and the NDP not see advantages in referring this matter to a special committee?


Benno Friesen: First, Mr. Speaker, I do not carry high risk insurance so I will not speak on behalf of the NDP and what it is going to do. With respect to our position, I want to point out to the Minister-and our spokesman will carry our official position-that the debates in the House, because they are carried on national television, are very important to the people of Canada. Therefore, an open and wide debate is very important. To me it is very important that as many Canadians as possible hear and follow the debates daily and they ought to enjoy the privilege. 1 know there is a time lag between the currency of the debate and the time when the public responds to us as Members of Parliament. Therefore we owe it to them, without any talk of filibustering or short circuiting, to give them a chance to follow the debate. In terms of passing the Bill on to committee, I will let my spokesman speak to that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) with respect to the way in which the Bill should be handled. He will know that we discussed in a general way some of the options available to us in terms of the progress of the Bill. As I said on Friday-and I repeat it today-the normal process is to have our respective House Leaders discuss the matter in terms of determining the appropriate committee which should deal with this legislation. Indeed, the Solicitor General put his finger on one of the problems which we face as parliamentarians with respect to this piece of legislation. I do not want to rehash this item. I raised it last Friday so that the people of Canada could understand precisely where we were in dealing with the legislation. This is the first time we have had a chance to debate a very sensitive and very important matter on the floor of the House of Commons. Accordingly, I am inclined to say that we should have a fair and reasonable debate.
Also in my remarks last Friday I said that we should have a fair and close scrutiny of the legislation. We should have an opportunity to examine it clause by clause and people should be able to respond to the new version of the security legislation. As the Solicitor General knows-and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) raised it in his remarks-the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) was the critic of the Solicitor General at the time Bill C-157 came in. He was clear and unequivocal with respect to the position which my Party took on the matter. It was a clear and serious assault on the civil liberties of Canadians.
Since I have assumed my important responsibilities as critic of the Solicitor General, I have not been at all reluctant to indicate clearly our concerns with respect to the new legislation. Of course, the Hon. Member for Burnaby spends more time now out in British Columbia for good and valid reasons in terms of the next election. Were he in the House of Commons dealing with the business at hand, he would have no illusions with respect to where my Party stands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The Hon. Member will be aware that there should not be reference to the attendance or non-attendance of any Member. The remarks are rather indirect, I caution him, and I ask him to wrap it up as he has been speaking for a rather long time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to cause any reflection upon the matter. I only assumed, because the Hon. Member for Burnaby did not know about what he was talking with respect to the position of my Party, that he was not here. That may have been a wrong assumption. Perhaps he was sitting in his place but was simply not paying attention to the position which my Leader and I have taken on this Bill.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) suggested that we examine the record in the House of statements made with respect to Bill C-157. I challenge him to rise in his place and point to a single occasion in the House when his predecessor, the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), now the justice critic for the Conservative Party, made any reference of a critical nature to Bill C-157.
Further I suggest that the Hon. Member might want to examine the record very carefully with respect to any alleged interventions by his Leader concerning Bill C-157. Again I challenge him to rise in his place during this ten-minute period to enlighten the House as to when it was that either his Leader or the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland, as official spokesperson of his Party, ever spoke on Bill C-157.
The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West is right. They were clear, they were unequivocal. They were clearly and unequivocally silent on that piece of legislation, and the record makes that very clear.
1 would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I am sorry but the challenge will have to remain on the record as the period for questions and answers has expired.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it is noticeable that the Government is not taking part in this debate except to the extent of having the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Tardif) contribute. I do not know whether members of the Government are fog-bound somewhere or whether they are just fog-bound here. In any event, it is strange that on a matter of this importance the Government has managed to prevent criticism of the Bill by its own Members.
Before it is too evident that I am critical of the Bill, I would like to hand out a bouquet, which I think is about enough. I
February 13, 1984

am referring to the presentation toward the end of the Bill of an index. The House will recall that I made quite a fuss about an index for the rules of the House. I am delighted to see the practice is beginning to grow in the development of Bills, particularly complicated ones like this, and that we have if not an index at least a table of contents in Bill C-9. An index is also helpful.
1 notice in Bill C-19, the amendments to the Criminal Code, that there is a table of contents. It might be described as such although it is done alphabetically and this one is done on a clause by clause basis, beginning with the first clause and continuing through. It is called a "Table of Provisions". It is a healthy and commendable development in drafting complicated legislation. I am grateful to the Government for having done this. I wish to compliment the Government officers in the gallery for carrying it out. Whether they initiated it or whether it was done on orders. I am not sure, but it is a commendable practice which I would like to see followed.
Having delivered myself of the only bouquet I could find in this spring of the year with no daffodils, it is time to have a look at this Bill as well as at a number of other Bills which have been presented by the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan). Three Bills have now been given first reading. Presumably in the course of time they will be presented to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. Bill C-9 is one of the Bills to which I refer, the upgraded and somewhat purified version of Bill C-157 in the previous Parliament. There is also Bill C-10, the divorce Bill, and there is a third Bill which consists of 600 pages of amendments to the Criminal Code, covering everything from pornography to the jury system. These three Bills were presented within a week or ten days of one another.
The Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will be looking at them, but I do not see how the committee will do it. There are two possibilities. Perhaps the Government has done it deliberately, having delayed the presentation of Bill C-9 for 15 years, just to show that it is earnest and determined to take action in certain fields so that it will be able to stand before the electorate in coming months. It will say it brought the legislation forward but the Opposition would not let the Government pass it, neglecting entirely the notion that no body of responsible people can pass three Bills of this importance and magnitude in the time between now and dissolution, which may be in three months, it may be in nine months. Even in nine months the divorce Bill and the amendments to the Criminal Code could barely be given the attention that each deserves.
Therefore I must question the sincerity of the Government in presenting this Bill when it had all the time in the world previously to bring it down. I am not questioning the public servants who drafted the Bill; they have no command over the time of presentation. That is a political decision. But I do question the political decision underlying the presentation of these three Bills so close to an election.
Security Intelligence Service
That is one criticism I have. There are a number of others. Unfortunately I was unable to be here on Thursday to hear all of the presentations. I did not have the text of Hansard when I left, so I could not study all the comments.
There is some rather unusual phraseology in the Bill which troubles me. I compare the text in Bill C-9 with the text in Bill C-157 particularly in so far as it relates to omissions. In Bill C-157 there was an admission that Canada had some friends. It included "Canada or any state, allied or associated with Canada"; "espionage or sabotage against Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada". The expression "any state, allied or associated with Canada" was deleted. Does that mean that, should we discover that there is in Canada a plot of some kind, espionage against one of our allies or associates, we would not be interested? Why was that phrase deleted?
It is my understanding that the Senate looked at that matter and said that it could easily be dropped. It was dropped in two places, in the definition of "threats to the security of Canada" under (a) and, if I remember correctly, under (b). I worry that we should be so neglectful of our friends that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service would not be empowered to carry out investigatory procedures against espionage or sabotage related to one of our allies or associates. We are isolating ourselves just a bit too much when we leave them out.
Canada of all countries needs friend, allies and associates. Here we are virtually saying "The hell with them. If they get into trouble, tough. We will look after our business through our Security Intelligence Service and not worry at all about friends and associates."That is one of the shortcomings of that deletion.
It has been my experience in this field and in many others that exchanges of information mean exchanges in two directions. If you have nothing to exchange or refuse to exchange, nothing is going to come in your direction. This is one reason I deplore the removal of those words from the original Bill and their deletion in the new version. It was thought in the Senate that the expression "is detrimental to the interests of Canada" would be broad enough to deal with that. I see no harm whatsoever in leaving in the expression about our allies and associates. We should be quite specific that that possibility is still there.
There is another aspect which has not yet been clarified. That is Clause (b) of the definition section which relates to activities "within or relating to Canada". If you pursue that notion "relating to Canada" and contrast it with "within", if there are foreign influence activities "relating to Canada" anywhere in the world, will the Canadian Security Intelligence Service be empowered to investigate and bring forward a report.
Is that really the intent of this Government, an intelligence service overseas? Do we intend to send spies abroad to see what activities are being generated "relating to Canada"? It has generally been understood that this Bill is of domestic dimensions, but that clause, which is still to be defined, suggests that it has broader implications as far as Canadian personnel and their investigative practices are concerned. If it

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
relates to the exchange of information and if it relates to Canada although taking place in other parts of the world, my comment about the previous omission is even more valid.
We are not going to get information about activities affecting Canada from our allies and friends unless we are prepared to share with our allies and friends information relating to any activities that we run across in Canada which affects them. That stands to reason. Exchange of information is exchange of information. It is not a one-way street. Therefore, I am a little worried. I have checked the French version of the same definition and it comes out just about the same; c) les activites qui touchent le Canada ou s'y deroulent et visent a favoriser l'usage de la violence dans le but d'atteindre un objectif politique au Canada ou dans un Etat etranger. It says "in a foreign state", and it does not necessarily mean a friendly state; "achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state".
Were there to be, for example, a group of Cubans who happen to be in Canada plotting, if you like, or organizing some way of changing the regime in Cuba, would that be a legitimate activity for investigation by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service? While Bill C-157 was pretty sloppily drafted, Mr. Speaker, there is some questionable drafting in this new Bill despite the bouquets I was throwing around a little earlier. That worries me.
Another matter of considerable concern is the sponsor, if you like, of this particular Bill. It seems to me in looking back over the last 15 years or so that practically everything this Government touches, it soils. There are lots of things one can point to. I think particularly of the Department of External Affairs, where I was once a foreign service officer, which the Government has managed somehow or other to downgrade and soil. I do not know whether it has been deliberate, but it has. The most recent changes effected in that Department have caused complete confusion there and in other Government Departments. I have heard it said, for example, that when domestic industry get parts or patents or processes from abroad, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has to send its employees abroad to discover these things.
The integration of Canada's outlook on the world, projecting its views of the world, and enlisting trade support or the development of markets abroad was very much in the hands of the Department of External Affairs in its overseas operations, through the embassy. What we have now is just one example of how this Government has distorted, soiled or twisted practically everything it touches. It worries me.
A Bill of this sort, Mr. Speaker, purporting to deal with an activity of this sort, security and intelligence, sponsored by this Government, is ipso facto suspect because this Government is not trusted. That has been said before and I am afraid it is high time the Government realized that in nearly all its activities it is not trusted. The Department of National Revenue is still going through a process of trying to re-establish itself, if it ever can. It is not the public servants who are doing
it, Mr. Speaker; it is the Ministers who have this twisted view of how their activities should be developed.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment and ask the Hon. Member a question. One of the provisions of this legislation which has drawn a good deal of fire is the provision contained in Clause 16, and I believe it was contained in Clause 18 of the predecessor Bill, which would permit the new security service to embark on activities totally unrelated to national security. Instead, the service would for the first time have responsibilities with respect to the conduct of international affairs and external affairs in Canada. I draw to the Hon. Member's attention Clause 16 which reads:
-the Service may, in relation to the defence of Canada or the conduct of the international affairs of Canada, assist the Minister of National Defence or the Secretary of State for External Affairs, within Canada, in the collection of information or intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of
(a)	any foreign state or group of foreign states; or
(b)	any person other than-
A Canadian citizen or landed immigrant, in effect. As the House will appreciate, this extends to the service the power to, in effect, use all of the intrusive techniques set out in this Bill against targets who pose no threat whatsoever to national security. It could be a source of information to the government of the day in its conduct of external affairs.
Given the sweeping nature of the powers proposed in this legislation, for example the power to open first-class mail, examine all government records including income tax records, family allowance, unemployment insurance files and all other files in the possession of the government, the power to break into any place and examine private records-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: They can do it now.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -including medical records and others-and the Solicitor General suggests they can break in anywhere they want now-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With a warrant.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -whether doctors' offices, Members of Parliament or lawyers, journalists and so on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You know they can do that now under the present law.


Svend Johannes Robinson: One would have hoped that the Solicitor General would have given very clear instructions to the Service that such activities are inappropriate. I would welcome the intervention of the Solicitor General to that effect.
Given that the functions of the Service are supposed to be related, one would have thought, to national security, what are the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich's views with respect to this very important extension of the powers of the new security service into the realm of using intrusive techniques to collect information for the conduct of international affairs in Canada?
February 13, 1984


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 am glad to have that question because I did not manage to get around to all the criticisms I have of this particular Bill. The Hon. Member has made some rather important criticisms of the Bill. If, as he says, the Bill provides the Government, particularly the two Ministers mentioned, with information gleaned from within Canada, this certainly goes beyond what it should.
I wonder why they were so generous in excluding Canadian citizens who might be involved in some of these activities. Unfortunately, in the past we have known of Canadian citizens who have been involved in some of the activities which might be the object of interest of the security service. Had I had more time I might have gotten around to asking about why Canadian citizens are excluded. I do not really see that that is an appropriate exclusion.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the remarks of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who has taken a great interest in this legislation. I see that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has been listening attentively to the matters raised by my colleague. In light of the questions put to the Hon. Member by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I would challenge him to stand in his place and tell us about one time when, on the floor of the House of Commons, his Leader has taken any position vis-a-vis this legislation. It seems to me that he has been silent on the issue. The Hon. Member for Burnaby will understand that when his Leader stands up it is usually to speak against a position taken by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, as in the case of the prostitution Bill, where his Leader was vociferous in his rejection of the Hon. Member's position. In the case of the divorce Bill, the position taken by the Hon. Member for Burnaby was reversed by his Leader.
With respect to the position of this Party, I must say that as this is the First time the matter has been addressed on the floor of the House of Commons, I have questioned the Solicitor General in my capacity as spokesperson on matters in his Department, after the Senate report, to see when we could have the early introduction of this legislation and at that time the Solicitor General said he was taking the report under advisement. In the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee I have raised the question of the position taken by the Solicitor General vis-a-vis the report of the Senate committee and I repeat that we have not had an opportunity in the House of Commons to deal with the matter.
I will not elaborate on that, Mr. Speaker, but simply say by way of comment on my colleague's remarks, which were very helpful, that we take our responsibilities regarding this legislation seriously. We want to give it serious consideration. The Solicitor General and the Government will have to demonstrate that they are prepared to be amenable to looking at some of the powers proposed to be vested in this agency. We want to make sure that there is full accountability, that the powers of the agency are under control and that we have a situation where there is a clear and precise definition of those powers and the ability of the agency to carry out its responsi-
Security Intelligence Service
bility. As I mentioned in my remarks on Friday, the fundamental principle which we must all abide by in this country is government under the rule of law, and that includes any agency of government.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a brief question of the previous speaker. I have some concerns about the appeal and review procedures that would enable people who are investigated to have an adequate opportunity to clear their name. Would the Hon. Member like to comment on that aspect of the Bill?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I had prepared notes on this for my comments and I am sorry that I did not have time to get around to them. This is a shortcoming of the Bill. I have not been able to discover the means whereby a person may re-establish his good name if he is unjustly wiretapped and it comes to the public attention that he is possibly a potential spy for a foreign power or someone engaged in sabotage activity, this is one of the areas we will have to examine carefully in order to make sure that an individual who is completely, utterly and entirely innocent will have every opportunity to re-establish his good name and that the Minister responsible for the agency that allowed the misdemeanour, the slander, to occur will be held responsible in the House for having done so.
The good name of Canadian citizens is important to Canada. We must not allow this particular agency to besmirch those names, and if it is done in error there must be a means whereby the good name can be restored. The Minister is going to be held responsible, personally, in the House for having allowed that to occur.


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


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the most critical and crucial Bills to come before Parliament. It has been a long time aborning. It goes back to the history of the Mackenzie Commission of 1969, the McDonald Commission of 1981 and the very unfortunate Bill C-157, which raised the fears and concerns of Canadians from coast to coast. Now we have before us Bill C-9.
I look at this Bill in a particular way, Mr. Speaker. To me the most precious possession of each and every Canadian is his or her basic freedoms and liberties. They are so much more important than personal wealth, material goods or status in society. Basic freedoms and liberties have evolved over the centuries; they began with the Magna Carta and have become entrenched in our parliamentary tradition. The most important thing that each and every Member of Parliament can do in this House is to make sure that we strive unceasingly to protect those rights and freedoms and not in any way, shape or form to allow anything to constrain or restrict them. We must not leave this House having seen the rights and freedoms of Canadians diminished. For me, that is what the Bill is all about.

February 13, 1984
When the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) spoke on Friday, he said: "What is not in question today is the need for an efficient security intelligence service". I do not believe that anyone questions the need for a security intelligence service in this country, Mr. Speaker. The question is really about the framework and the manner in which that security and intelligence service would operate. It does have work to do; it has work to do in the field of threats to the security of our country but we must be absolutely certain that, in the pursuit of that objective, the rights and freedoms of individual Canadians are not tampered with and not violated in any way at all.
Our responsibility, first and foremost, must be to see that constraints are placed on the activities of the intelligence service, not on the activities of the men and women of Canada.
On Friday when the Minister spoke, as reported at page 1275 of Hansard, he said:
With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have demonstrated and affirmed our commitment to individual liberty.
If that is right, why are people so concerned today about the activities being carried out by officials of Revenue Canada? If people in this country are given such a guarantee of their rights and freedoms under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, how is it that a case like that of Donald Marshall can continue to plague the country? Where are the rights and freedoms that an individual like that is supposed to be guaranteed? Where were the rights and freedoms of Peter Treu? We remember the agony that man went through. We have to make sure that this Bill guarantees those rights and freedoms.
I see it is one o'clock, Sir.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, over one year ago the youth wing of the Liberal Party of Canada overwhelmingly condemned government by "polls, propaganda and patronage orchestrated by a small elite". That reform sentiment has instead produced a Finance Minister (Mr. Lalonde) who uses the Budget to provide $300 million of
taxpayers' money for a secret slush fund to be spent by the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's own Office.
The cancer lies in the backrooms of the Prime Minister Office, and it is spreading. In Canada today more and more Canadians are embarrassed when forced to admit that they have ever been supporters of the Liberal Party. More and more Liberals are asking who gave the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's Office the power to decide who gets a job and who does not.
More and more Canadians are asking for a public inquiry into the role the backroom manipulators in the Prime Minister's Office have played in deciding where and how taxpayers' dollars are to be secretly spent. The choice for Canadians is backroom manipulators, or democracy. I urge Canadians to choose democracy the minute they have the chance. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, our problems are being caused by the reptiles in the Prime Minister's Office.


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



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a representation on behalf of heart transplant recipients. The general public does not know much about this type of operation, largely because those who go through such an operation do not wish to receive publicity. This is understandable. However, Mr. Speaker, a new drug has greatly increased the frequency of success of these operations and this fact should be brought to the attention of the public.
I have in my riding a person who recently received a new heart and a new lease on life. His doctor has lifted all his restrictions, and still my constituent is in an extremely frustrating situation. Over his three-year absence from the field of computers he has lost his advantage to those who have kept up with the myriad of changes. Also, employers, largely unaware of the success of these operations, are wary of rehiring heart transplant recipients.
On top of this, my constituent's disability pension will soon expire. He is not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he has not worked the required number of weeks within the period specified by the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations. This is a man who paid into unemployment insurance for 20 years before his condition dictated that he exit the work force.
New social programs are required immediately, Mr. Speaker, to facilitate this steadily growing segment of our society in resuming normal, productive lives after heart transplant operations.
February 13, 1984



EDUCATION


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, Conservative provincial Governments across Canada are playing fast and loose with federal education funds by continuing to divert vast sums of federal dollars away from post-secondary education while Ottawa stands idly by. This pattern of escalating abuse has reached its zenith in British Columbia as huge student fee increases, staff and program cutbacks, and even the outright closure of entire institutions, have become the order of the day, while our taxpayers' dollars are squandered on high profile, prestige projects and uneconomic resource give aways.
In my own riding of Kootenay West, in fact in my home town, the David Thompson University Centre, the only nonmetropolitan campus in B.C., is being shut down on May 1, throwing 100 faculty and staff onto the jobless rolls, and denying some 500 students of their right to reasonable equality of access to education. But the tragedy is not simply local. Many David Thompson University Centre programs, in fine arts, in the school of writing, and in rural education, are unique and are simply not available elsewhere in our province. As a result, many students come from other areas, and over 60 per cent of our students are women.
I plead with the Government to respond soon to the earlier appeals of my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), and myself, and urgently consider what action it might take by way of applying special emergency funds or by means of special sanctions to save jobs and programs now in B.C., and to ensure the rights and future careers of our young people in Nelson, throughout B.C., and across Canada.



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the thousands of people in my riding of Finnish descent, and on behalf of the thousands of Finnish people who live in Canada, I wish to comment on the insensitive statement of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) concerning "Finlandization". Many people of Finnish ancestry have correctly pointed out that, while Finland lives in the shadow of the Russian bear, unlike other countries in this situation "Finlandization" means a policy which is one of independence, not domination. This is very difficult to achieve, as we can appreciate. Therefore, I felt it necessary to explain. The mistaken impression which was given by the Leader of the Opposition is an injustice to Finns everywhere.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, the continued fighting and bloodshed in Lebanon have saddened the hearts of those who are seeking a solution to this conflict and of all those who want peace in this world. Canadians have great sympathy for the Lebanese man on the street, who only wants to live in peace and go about his daily business in a normal way. We all realize that the situation is hardest on Lebanese citizens, who have nothing to gain from this conflict.
At home, Canadians of Lebanese origin are well known for their enterprising attitude without racial or ideological prejudice. They have a reputation for working hard to achieve their own and their family's goals. Every night, pictures on TV remind us of the tragedy that is taking place in the streets of Beirut and of the pressing need for all citizens of this world to find ways of ensuring that we can all live together in peace.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Hon. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, last November the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) told a meeting of Alberta Tories that he and his Party favoured scrapping the National Energy Program's so-called 25 per cent "back-in" provision. Just as he made this statement, the Tory Premier of Nova Scotia, John Buchanan, began frantically lobbying Liberals in Ottawa to enshrine that provision in legislation in order to protect it from being changed by a future Government.
A few days ago, in talking to the Nova Scotia Tory Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition appeared to repudiate his November 8 pledge in Calgary and assured the Premier he would not change the program to the detriment of the province. Even as he was making that statement, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) was telling Maclean's magazine that a Tory Government would do away with the 25 per cent back-in provision.
When are the Tories going to get their energy act together, Mr. Speaker? When are they going to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth on this issue, saying one thing in one part of the country and something else in another part of the country? When will their Leader and official spokesmen stop trying to hoodwink Canadians by coming down on every side of every issue?

February 13, 1984



NATIONAL REVENUE


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, here is a case that speaks for itself. This Canadian woman operates a beauty salon. During the summer and late fall she was seriously ill with a degenerative problem. The pain was so severe that she was required to be on pain-killers 24 hours a day, and was unable to work. Surgery was eventually performed, with resultant relief and she returned to work.
The business had carried on in her absence and, upon her return, she felt there was an error in the amount of withholding that had been sent to Revenue Canada. In an attempt to find out what the true picture was, she called Revenue Canada and requested that they come and do an audit. An audit was performed by Revenue Canada, indicating that they had been underpaid by approximately $3,400.
An officer of Revenue Canada yelled and screamed at the woman until she was in tears. Ele refused to accept her offer to pay the amount outstanding by post-dated cheques. Another employee of the Department advised her not to worry, to send the post-dated cheques directly to the Taxation Centre in Winnipeg, and all would be well. She did this, and continued her business. Shortly after, without any further word, by either telephone or in writing, Revenue Canada scooped all of the company's funds from its bank account, seriously impairing its ability to survive.
What is happening to the concept of basic human decency in the Revenue Department? Is it the Government's aim to bankrupt businesses? This case was referred to the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


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



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, last October, in a rare display of unanimity, this House passed a resolution supporting the restoration of certain French language rights in the Province of Manitoba as originally provided for in the Manitoba Act of 1870. That resolution supported the will of the Manitoba Government to provide a made-in-Manitoba political solution, rather than having to accept a court imposed solution. We all well remember the eloquence of the Opposition Leader who, in his fine maiden speech in this House, committed his own wholehearted support as well as that of his caucus.
It was with great consternation we read on Friday last that two Members of the PC caucus, the Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and the Member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart), have broken this national consensus achieved only last fall. They are now going to provide funding
for a group leading the opposition to the introduction of French language services in Manitoba. The Conservative position is now a mystery, Mr. Speaker. Do they support the organized bigotry of Grant Russel and his "Grassroots Group", or do they truly support the restoration of a basic right of Franco-Manitobans?
It is incumbent upon the Opposition Leader to provide some leadership on this fundamentally important issue to this country. I call upon him to do this before the end of this week. All Canadians who believe in the duality of this country will be watching.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to a real problem concerning immigration applications under the family class. I should explain that at the present time, there is considerable delay between the time immigration applications, especially those from India, Bangladesh and Pakistan, are made and finally accepted, so that for instance, a young applicant who is only nineteen may be twenty-one when his application has finally been processed, which automatically disqualifies him for consideration by Immigration Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that to be fair to the people who want to come here as well as to their Canadian sponsors, the effective date for immigration applications should be the date on which the application was made, not the date on which it was approved.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the finding last week by Federal Court Justice, Barbara Reed, that the federal Government does not have the authority to issue authorization to use water without a licence in the Northwest Territories, such practice having been in contravention of the Northern Inland Waters Act, users of water have found themselves in a very awkward regulatory vacuum. Unfortunately the root of this problem can be traced to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Jealous of its previous colonial powers, it refused to act in the spirit of the Northern Inland Waters Act which transfers jurisdiction to the Northwest Territories Water Board.
It is important that this matter be cleared up in short order. The sollution is obvious to anyone with an eye to see it. The controller of water rights must cease being an employee of the
February 13, 1984

Department of Indian Affairs and must become responsible, not to the Minister, but to the Northwest Territories Water Board. This will ensure legality and concurrence with the wishes of Parliament as expressed through the Northern Inland Waters Act.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I would like to remind him that the unemployment rate in March, 1980, was 7.5 per cent. At that time 967,000 Canadians were unemployed. Today, four years after the Liberal Government came into power, the rate is 11.2 per cent, and 1,473,000 Canadians are unemployed. Our industries operated at 80 per cent of capacity in 1980. In the last three quarters of last year they operated at 68 per cent of capacity. These are the facts and the results of the Minister's stewardship and policies on energy and investment of the last four years. How can the Government and this Minister possibly make up for the damage that they have caused Canadians over these last four years, through any Budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for having paid tribute to the 15 years of Liberal leadership preceding 1980 which produced such good results for the Canadian economy. I must also remind him that the whole world went through the most severe recession since the Great Depression of 1930. Over 30 million unemployed can still be counted in industrialized countries. Canada has suffered through that recession as well as other countries.
1 would like to remind my friend that in 1983 Canada experienced a very strong recovery which compared favourably with that of any other country. I hope that when the Budget comes down later this week the Hon. Member will find that the steps we are proposing will ensure that this recovery is going to continue, and that we will take steps to ensure that the Canadian economy is going to grow and benefit all Canadians.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, misery loves company, and there is certainly lots of misery on the government side of the House. The Minister reminds me of a buzzard with a broken beak. The Canadian people are not going to swallow this song much longer.
Oral Questions


PERSONAL DISPOSABLE INCOME LEVELS
John Carnell Crosbie: Real family income, which is an immediate problem in Canada, has dropped 6 per cent from 1980 to 1982. In the first three quarters of 1983 real personal disposal income has dropped 1.8 per cent. In the United States it has gone up.
In these circumstances, with the recovery now faltering, and with a deficit that is going to be several billion dollars less than the Minister indicated last April, would the Minister agree to aid the recovery by improving the guaranteed income supplement? Would he agree to eliminate the Canadian ownership charge of four and a half cents a gallon, which amounts to $965 million this year? Would he agree to eliminate the federal sales tax increase of 1 per cent next October which he has already imposed on the Canadian consumer? Does he agree that Canadian consumers must be helped if there is going to be a continuing recovery? Will he take these kinds of steps that we suggest to him he should take, immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has some difficulty treating this as a single supplementary question. However, the Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Newfoundland has talked about Tories speaking from both sides of their mouths. I must tell my friend that he is suggesting a number of steps that would substantially reduce government revenues. At the same time, he should have a word with his Leader who says that we should reduce the deficit. I would suggest that he have a meeting with his Leader to find out if what they want is to reduce the deficit or increase the deficit, reduce the taxes or increase taxes, et cetera.
As far as his specific recommendations are concerned, obviously he will have to wait for the Budget next Wednesday to know the content of the measures that will be put forward-


Mr. Dick:: Next Wednesday, or this Wednesday?


Marc Lalonde: This Wednesday. As far as the specific taxes that he mentioned are concerned, particularly the Canadian ownership tax, I would remind him that on February 1 this year the Government abolished the natural gas and gas liquids tax which was generating $800 million a year. That step which we have taken means that, as of February 1, the federal Government is receiving $800 million less in taxes on natural gas and gas liquids than we were receiving the year before. That is a significant step.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 wonder if the House could delay until the Budget a full-scale debate on what appears to be budget proposals.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will be very good.

February 13, 1984
Oral Questions 1980 ELECTION PROMISES


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Minister will know that several thousand years ago the Chinese, knowing that he would be in government, decided that this would be the Year of the Rat.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I suggest to the Minister that he can take the steps I have suggested and reduce the deficit too, because his deficit will be several billions of dollars less than he indicated last April. In these circumstances, will he begin to meet his 1980 election promises to make the big projects happen, and to fight and overcome the recession? He is four years late in starting to meet those promises.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must have ... I must say that-

I will say it in English. I have not checked what the year was in 1980, when he was Minister of Finance, but it must have been the Year of the Snake.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: 1 can inform my hon. friend that the Budget will be brought down next Wednesday, and that he will have to wait at least two days to find out what kind of measures the Budget will contain. I can say that last year's Budget focussed on economic growth, economic recovery and increasing employment, and similarly, the Budget I am preparing now will respond to numerous representations I received in recent months which suggested that I pursue the basic direction of the policy contained in the Budget brought down last April.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Contrary to what the Minister told my colleague a few minutes ago, the economic performance in Canada during the life of the Government from 1980 is much worse than it was in the United States. I set that out very clearly on February 1, and the Minister did not contradict the statement that I made at that time.
The main difference is a conscious decision on the part of the Government to follow a set of misguided policies, partly his fault and partly the fault of the previous Minister, which were quite distinct from those in the United States. These included the National Energy Program, the way FIRA was being administered, the interest rate policy which resulted in rates significantly higher in Canada, a higher deficit, and higher increases in taxation. I could go on and on, but in order to increase-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member should ask a question. It is difficult to anticipate a budget debate by mini debates at this point.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I was just starting my question, Mr. Speaker. In order to increase the credibility that the Minister has lost recently, would be acknowledge that these policies which I have just set out are indeed the main difference between the economic performance here and in the United States and the reason why the unemployment rate in Canada has been so much worse than it has been in the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to a set of misguided policies. The best answer I can give him in that respect is to quote from the Member for St. John's West who asked the previous question. In an interview in The Globe and Mail, which was published about a month ago, he indicated quite clearly and specifically that if he were in my place he would follow fundamentally the same policies.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There is absolutely no question that the Member for St. John's West on no account would be following the policies that I just set out.


FORECASTS OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the strength of the recovery in Canada has come from automobile sales because of the high average life of cars in this country, and from the housing industry which has been the beneficiary of some government policies. Since these two influences are receding, and business in Canada this year will be flat compared to the 9 per cent increase in real terms in the United States, from where does the Minister expect the recovery to receive its impetus if in fact his claim for a strong recovery is not to become the same sort of bad joke as that of his predecessor in 1981, when he put forth that totally misguided and unfortunate Budget which hurt so many Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first I will tell the Hon. Member that he will have to wait 48 hours. Second, I will refer him again to that excellent interview which was granted to The Globe and Mail by the Member for St. John's West. Third, I would remind him that all the main indicators performed better in 1983 than even I had forecast in my Budget. At that time the Hon. Member and his colleagues were saying that my forecasts were too optimistic and not realistic. In effect, the record on inflation, on employment, on interest rates, and on the growth of the economy, is better than I had anticipated even in my Budget in 1983.
February 13, 1984


FORESTRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for forestry. As the Minister knows, the forest products sector is very important in at least five of our provinces, and crucially important in a few of those. Before the weekend his Department released a report which predicted that we will lose 30,000 jobs in the forest products sector, and another 30,000 in the related service products sector. Would he confirm to the House if these alarming figures are accurate and, if so, what does his Government plan to do about this fundamentally important part of the Canadian economy?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, we have made a commitment to FOR1NTEK and this institute for some years. We have renewed this commitment, and the Hon. Member knows very well that we are very concerned with maintaining the viability of this sector of our economy.
In 1983-84 we have done everything possible to maintain jobs in this particular sector, particularly through unemployment insurance funding of jobs, despite lack of co-operation from one province.


John Edward Broadbent: The House and, more important, the people of Canada will note that the Minister did not confirm or deny the accuracy of these alarming figures. The loss of 60,000 jobs at this time in our history is something the country cannot afford.


REFORESTATION FUNDING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister said that he is doing much to preserve jobs, could he explain to the House why, since just 18 months ago the federal Liberal Government promised to spend $130 million on reforestation which does provide jobs, it recently cut that by millions of dollars? That $130 million a year for the next five years was recently cut by millions, which means in British Columbia a reduction from $52 milliom annually to $5 million, one tenth the amount. If the Minister is concerned about jobs, why does he not restore this money which is needed for reforestation?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the figures in the study, I cannot deny or confirm their accuracy. These are forecasts and, of course, must be treated with a grain of salt. I hope these losses in the industry will not take place.
As to the specifics of the federal participation in agreements, I can confirm to you, Mr. Speaker, that up until now we have maintained the integrity of the forest renewal policy as announced in the past. We have done that, particularly with the very same concern in mind, namely, to maintain the jobs and the viability of that sector in our economy.
Presence in Gallery


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, only a Liberal cabinet Minister could believe that if you cut the funding by 10 per cent, or provide only one-tenth of the amount that you were originally planning to spend, somehow you are doing more for the unemployed. That is typical Liberal thinking.


REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY BE ESTABLISHED
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since it is acknowledged by everyone who is informed about that industry that there is a serious crisis, will the Minister call for a meeting between himself and the provincial Ministers responsible for forestry, to come up with some early recommendations to deal with this crisis? Specifically, would the Minister consider the creation of a federal Department of Forestry which would, among other things, have the purpose of going into the world to pursue more export markets for Canadian forest products?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I will do anything that will facilitate and strengthen opportunities for forestry in this country. In that respect I would like to bring to the attention of the Hon. Member something that he seems to prefer to ignore, namely, that in the current fiscal year we have invested in forestry schools across the country some $3.5 million; in research and development $9.5 million, and in job-creation $100 million. In the expansion of existing forestry facilities we will be investing something like $33 million in the Maritimes, $11 million in the Laurentians; $13 million in the Great Lakes region, and $14 million in the Pacific region. To strengthen pulp and paper research facilities in the current fiscal year we have put in $17 million. In water bombers from the federal Government alone we will be investing some $157 million, and all this, Mr. Speaker, because we believe that we have a role to play and forestry is an important sector in our economy. The Hon. Member is only interested in doom and gloom.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MAYORS AND OFFICIALS FROM THE NETHERLANDS
Mr. Speaker:: May I call to the attention of the House the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of a group of mayors and elected officials from the Province of Friesland in the Netherlands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 13, 1984
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF COMMITTEE ON SENATE REFORM FROM ALBERTA
Mr. Speaker:: May I also call to the attention of the House the presence in the Senate Gallery of a Committee on Senate reform from the Province of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue. In response to a question asked this weekend with respect to immunity and with respect to Revenue Canada officials, the Minister is quoted as follows:
-I have no objections that officials meet with them-
-meaning the task force, and to and give them any comments they're asked for as long as those parliamentary rules are accepted
The Minister knows that this is not a parliamentary task force. The Minister knows that there are no parliamentary rules.
I infer from the Minister's answer that there will be no immunity which will be given to Revenue Canada officials who testify and appear before this task force. Will the Minister give an undertaking today that all Revenue Canada officials who wish to testify before this task force will be able to do so without fear of punishment and without fear of retaliation? And exactly what did the Minister mean by saying "parliamentary rules", if they apply?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the Hon. Member asked this question. 1 said in my reply that it was necessary to make a distinction between a Parliamentary Committee, which is the Standing Committee of the House, and a Caucus or a Caucus Committee. Now, if I understood correctly, the reference was to a Caucus Committee of Progressive Conservative Members, and I pointed out that there were also specific guidelines for this particular circumstance, namely, a practice Hon. Members are well acquainted with which concerns information given by officials to a Caucus or Caucus Committee, and which applies to all party caucuses. I also pointed out that the guidelines and common practice which apply in the case of caucuses or committees apply in this situation as well.


Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, what the Minister has said in his circuitous way is that anybody from Revenue Canada who appears and testifies before this task force, not a parliamentary task force but a Conservative task force, will have absolutely no immunity from punishment or retaliation. That is what the Minister is saying.


GUIDELINES GOVERNING APPEARANCES BY OFFICIALS
Chris Speyer: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister please confirm the accuracy of that assertion, that anybody from Revenue Canada who appears before this task force is subjecting himself or herself to retaliation or punishment for giving MPs knowledge of policy that exists within Revenue Canada?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is indulging in sophistry. First of all, he would have to admit that it is a Caucus Committee of Progressive Conservative Members. The Hon. Member said that it was not a Committee of the Progressive Conservative Caucus. If it is a Committee of the Progressive Conservative Caucus, that Committee and that Caucus must agree to follow the guidelines and the rules of the game, which are well established, and parliamentary practice, which is also well established, when officials meet either the Caucus of the New Democratic Party, the Progressive Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. If the Hon. Member refuses to accept these rules and guidelines and this practice, he should come out and say so.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister who, I know as a Nova Scotian, will have particular interest in this question. Does the Acting Prime Minister share the shame I feel as a Nova Scotian over the miscarriage of justice in the Donald Marshall case, and the disgrace I feel as a Canadian parliamentarian that this Parliament, through the Minister of Justice, has not taken the lead to redress this travesty of justice in trying to work out some form of compensation for Donald Marshall?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I understand that matter is, in some important aspects, now before the courts in the Province of Nova Scotia.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Shame!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am interested in waiting for the result of that process.


John Carnell Crosbie: He has been in jail for 11 years. Never mind the courts.
February 13, 1984


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT TAKE ACTION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am disappointed in the Acting Prime Minister, who has that title even though he will not discharge his responsibility. 1 was asking the Acting Prime Minister whether, as a matter of government policy, the Minister of Justice and the Government will take the lead, regardless of the case in Nova Scotia, which does not impinge on compensation to Mr. Marshall who spent 11 years behind bars, with the suppression of evidence. Everyone has been dancing between the constitutional chairs. Meanwhile no redress has taken place. The wrong can never be corrected, but surely the Government can right the wrong.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has added nothing to a question which has been asked several times in this House before-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Nothing has been done.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -and answered by my colleague, the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for answering.


John Carnell Crosbie: Act on it. Get the Acting Prime Minister. Who will act?


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is about the Immediate Employment Stimulation Program in Saskatchewan. 1 understand Senator Hazen Argue has access to a $4 million fund, and the only access to that fund is through Senator Argue's office. My understanding is that public servants are not involved before a decision is made by the Senator's office and then approved by the Minister of Employment's office here in Ottawa. Only after that are the public servants involved. Why are public servants not involved beforehand? Why does the Senator have the $4 million slush fund in Saskatchewan that he can hand out to whomever he wants?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. gentleman's description of the program accurately characterizes it. The process is such that projects may very well be suggested by a Minister's office and then go to the allocation committee. At that stage the evaluation is made by officials. I think it would not be particularly valuable to have officials evaluate every project which was hypothetically available for consideration.
The nature of the program is to fund, in a fast-track way, projects which look as if they have appeal in terms of creating employment. I think the important point to note-and I think
Oral Questions
the Hon. Member's question recognized it-is that there is an assessment of officials before the projects are approved.


MINISTER'S POWERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. The Minister has confirmed that the only access to the fund is through the Senator's office and that public servants are not involved in screening or analyzing applications. Such is not the case with Canada Works and other programs. What authority does the Minister have to give a Senator the kind of political power to have a slush fund like this when it is not done with other programs in his Department? Is that right?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it clear to the hon. gentleman that I did not accept the assumptions which underlay his question. It is not, I think, anything that could be accurately described as a slush fund. It is an attempt to have a fast-track process to approve job-creation projects.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: There is no indication that it flows to organizations or areas which are particularly responsive to the Liberal Party. It is true that there is an involvement of regional Ministers in allocations under the program. The Hon. Member seems to find that shocking. I think it would be peculiar, given the commitments of cabinet solidarity and cabinet responsibility, that cabinet Ministers were not aware of projects which were suggested for their areas.


SPECIAL INITIATIVES EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM-DELAY IN FORWARDING CRITERIA
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The trouble with the Minister's fast-tracking is that the tracks only lead to the Liberal caucus.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would like to ask the Minister a very simple question. On November 29 in the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, the Minister, in reply to a question which I put to him regarding the criteria for the Special Initiatives Employment Program, or the Special Employment Initiatives Program, or the Special Employment Stimulation Program-it has had three different names-said, "if that has not been sent out, it will be in the next day or two". That was November 29. At that time there was $12 million left in the fund. Can he explain to us why we did not get the criteria until February 2?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I would point out first of all to the Hon. Member that it is not a track which leads only to Liberal ridings. If he would remember back in November when we

February 13, 1984
Oral Questions
discussed the question before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, I pointed out to him that I would very much welcome suggestions coming from him or other members of the Opposition for projects.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: It is with some regret that he has not bothered to send us any. As far as the allegation in terms of figures is concerned, I will have to look into it.


James Aloysius McGrath: We could hardly make submissions until we saw what the criteria were. We did not get the criteria until February 2, even though he promised them to us the next day.


CONSULTATION WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
James Aloysius McGrath: Let me refer to the criteria, Mr. Speaker. In the House on February 7 the Prime Minister indicated that members of the Liberal caucus and Members of Parliament were consulted, specifically members of the Liberal caucus, and asked to submit projects. Yet the criteria indicate:
-Grants and Contributions were not allocated on a constituency basis and, thus, were not the subject of formal consultation with Members of Parliament.
Can the Minister explain to the House why it is that only Liberal Members of Parliament were consulted when, according to the criteria, no Members of Parliament were to be consulted?


John (Moody) Roberts: Well, the Hon. Member forgets the use of the word "formal" there.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Moody) Roberts: I do not think that there were formal consultations with Members of Parliament on the Liberal side other than the general Communication of information which takes place between a Government and members, urging that they take advantage of government programs which are available.
The Hon. Member asked for the criteria for the program, before the committee in November. I indicated to him at that time that the criteria were deliberately very wide-ranging and flexible, because their purpose was to cut through bureaucratic red tape. I promised to make available to him as quickly as I could-


James Aloysius McGrath: Two and a half months later.


John (Moody) Roberts: -the criteria. The criteria were prepared, a description of them was prepared, a bit before Christmas. I was not entirely satisfied that that gave as clear a picture to the hon. gentleman as he would like and, upon return, provided it to him. He complains that he could not make proposals to us without knowing what the criteria were. I suggest to him that he might have talked to some of his colleagues who did not seem to have any problem making proposals to us.


BAN ON CANADIAN FISH PRODUCTS ANNOUNCED BY UNITED KINGDOM FOOD CHAIN
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just a few days ago Ian MacLaurin, chief executive officer of TESCO, a major food chain in the United Kingdom, announced that his company would, when present stocks were exhausted, no longer sell Canadian fish products, as a protest against the Canadian seal fishery.
Is the Minister aware of the fact that the entire Canadian fishing industry is facing a drastic loss of markets in the United Kingdom as a result of the malicious advertising campaign carried out by misguided sentimentalists for animal welfare and, if so, what action does he intend to take for the protection of the Canadian fishing industry?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the question the Hon. Member has asked is one of very considerable importance in relation to the fishing industry.


John Carnell Crosbie: Has the cat got your tongue, Allan?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Department has taken very careful notice of this statement in Britain. We believe that the Canadian fishing industry should be consulted, and is being consulted by the Department on the matter. The action, of course, is totally unjustified and is an isolated one. We are confident that it is best combatted with as little publicity as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Sweep it under the rug.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Minister for International Trade for his answer, but my question was directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MOUNT PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the House, from my own experience visiting the U.K. and some European capitals only a year ago with the Minister of Fisheries, that the attitude of the officials of the Secretary of State for External Affairs was, "We will bury our head in the sand and maybe this one will go away". But it did not go away. Therefore I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would consider mounting a public information campaign in the United Kingdom, as well as in Europe, by broadcasting and using other items in the media, in the hope of counteracting this vicious propaganda. If he does not have money enough in his own budget, perhaps he would get the Minister of Fisheries to give him some of the $20 million which he plans to spend in Canada. Perhaps some of that money would be better spent where the markets are, in counteracting what I construe as something which could be
February 13, 1984

seriously detrimental to the over-all, entire Canadian fishing industry and its export market.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will be aware of the fact that publicity campaigns were undertaken extensively to attempt to have European citizens understand the nature of the seal industry over the course of the past four years during the seal controversy. Unfortunately, because of the emotional nature of the matter and the amount of misinformation, that has proven to be a very difficult campaign to carry out successfully. We believe, however, that there should be continued publicity about the fact that the fishing industry is indeed quite separate from the sealing industry. As to the question of the quality of Canadian fish, it should be judged on its own merits as it is the best possible product available in British stores, or elsewhere. We are confident that the matter can be dealt with effectively, but I stress again that I do not believe that it can be dealt with in the best way possible by giving it publicity in this House.


EMPLOYMENT
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who has admitted that, in November last year, under the Special Employment Initiatives Program $138 million had been spent in that fiscal year and $150 million for the previous fiscal year. He also admitted that, as of December last year, he was not sufficiently satisfied with the criteria to let them be known to Members of Parliament on this side of the House of Commons. Is the Minister telling us that he spent $288 million without criteria which he considered satisfactory?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Mr. Speaker. What I meant to say, and what I think I did say, was that the exposition of the criteria I thought was not as clear as to enable Members of Parliament opposite to understand them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is being consistent. His seatmate, the Minister of Finance, spent $200 million by letting the cameras in on his exposition. This Minister spent $288 million with regard to criteria that he did not consider clear enough to trust to distribution to Members of the House of Commons.


NATURE OF INFORMAL CONSULTATIONS WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pursue the question of informal consultations. We were told by the criteria that were circulated that there were to be
Oral Questions
no formal consultations with Members of Parliament. The Minister made a great deal about that. He suggested there were informal consultations. What was the nature of the informal consultations with Liberal Members of Parliament, setting up this massive multimillion dollar Liberal porkbarrel? When will the Minister present in this House a detailed list of all of the expenditures under this program in all of the constituencies in Canada that receive benefit from the program?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr, Speaker, the Right Hon. Member has included several questions under one umbrella. Clearly he either does not bother to listen to what I say, or does not care to interpret correctly. If he cares to examine Hansard, he will see that I did not say what he alleges I said in the first part of his question.
In so far as when the lists will be produced, I have given instructions to my officials to compile as accurately and as wide ranging as possible an indication of all the projects which we have funded. I have told him that it will take several days before that work is completed. I expect it will be done in about a week's time, perhaps earlier if I can speed it up.


CRITERIA GOVERNING GRANT TO ALLIANCE COMMUNITY SERVICES, TORONTO
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As Minister of his Department and as regional Minister from Toronto, is he aware of the document entitled "A discussion paper on the integration and the Italian community's relations with the Liberal Party", dated August 29, 1983, which states that it is necessary to fund loyal and valid agencies within our community? If the Minister is aware of this document, will he explain to the House what criteria he used to give a grant of $583,000 to a group that was formed as a result of what was recommended in this paper, a group of people called the Alliance Community Services, which in effect is a group of Liberal Members who are the same signatories to this paper? Is the Minister aware of this document? Under what criteria did he fund the grant of $583,000 to the Alliance Community Services of Toronto?


John (Moody) Roberts: The answer to the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, is no, to the best of my knowledge I am not aware of the document from which he has quoted. I cannot say that some such document has not been received by my office, but I have not seen any such document that contains the phraseology he has described.
In terms of the acceptance of the particular project which he has mentioned, there was an assessment of that project by officials of my Department. Clearly the concerns and advice of the Member of Parliament from that area, because we believe on this side of the House that Members of Parliament know their areas well and their views on what should be done with them are worthy of respect-it is a project that was assessed

February 13, 1984
Oral Questions
both by the members of my Department, and also a project which was supported strongly by the Member of Parliament who knew very well the community for which he advocated the project.


DEPARTMENT'S APPROVAL OF GRANT
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister just said that the officials of his Department approved this grant. Will the Minister confirm that my understanding is correct that, in view of the fact that the United Way of Greater Toronto has opposed the grant, and the Social Planning Council of Metro Toronto has opposed the grant, the grant is clearly a Liberal front, if he looks at the people with connections in Jim Coutt's office, and the danger to his fellow Members of Parliament in the area taking over their ridings? Will the Minister again go on record that his Department has confirmed this grant, and is he prepared to table the contract and the approval of his departmental officials for this grant?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that, subsequent to the letters which I received from the agencies which the Hon. Member mentioned, I did ask for a reassessment of the project to be made, and an officer from my Department visited the project and assessed it. It is being monitored. I can confirm to him that that is taking place.
I personally have no objection to the tabling of the contract. I do not know whether that requires the permission of the people with whom the contract has been made, so maybe I will have to hedge my response to the Hon. Member in that particular aspect of his question. However, I can assure him that, in approving a project and signing it, it was certainly not done on the basis of any connections that the sponsors might or might not have had with any political party.
It is, of course, clear that no one is precluded from applying for projects under the program on the basis of their political affiliation, nor do I try to assess or question the party affiliation of people who are proposing measures to us. I can clearly recollect approved funding for the Stanley Knowles Housing Co-op in Toronto. I do not know the political affiliation of the people who suggested that project, but I would be very surprised to find that they had a Liberal affiliation.
All I am saying is that having taken part in the political process does not preclude you from entering government programs. I can assure the hon. gentleman it was not political considerations on the basis of these people's alleged party affiliation which led to the receiving of that grant.


UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION REASONS FOR ANNOUNCED UNITED STATES WITHDRAWAL
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that the United States has stated its intention to withdraw from UNESCO at the end of 1984, on the grounds that that agency is overly politicized and badly managed. Has the Canadian Government examined the reasons that have been advanced by the United States? If these reasons are found to be valid, would the Government put pressure on UNESCO now to reform itself before any structural weakening in that very important agency takes place?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We have followed this particular action of the Government of the United States very closely. We had been alerted to that possibility before the action was taken. We expressed our view that it was a wrong action on the part of the United States, that it would be much better to remain in the organization and attempt to correct, along with other countries, some of the deficiencies which were observable in UNESCO.
However, it may be that in the year ahead the United States will reconsider. I do not hold out very much promise, but during that period it will be possible to try to join with other countries to see whether some progress can be made in order to induce the United States to remain within the organization. It is a very large contributor. If its resources were removed, it would have rather damaging effects on the performance of UNESCO. I have no doubt that some of the complaints about the organization were justified. I have in mind particularly the undue bringing in of political discussions which had a better place elsewhere.


CANADIAN POSITION
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, what is the Canadian Government doing to protest to UNESCO directly to reform itself, so that it can substantially answer the criticisms that have been advanced by the United States?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to send to the Hon. Member the statement that was made by my colleague, the Minister of External Relations, at the UNESCO meeting in which he outlined steps that ought to be taken in order to improve the effectiveness of the organization. We have been working very closely with other countries in UNESCO in order to bring about these changes. The action of the United States was not the first time that we heard about the necessity of doing something to improve the situation at UNESCO.
February 13, 1984



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 2,400 residents of Canada who ask that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) of the Government of Canada allow the release of the transcript of the military inquest into the deaths of two members of the Canadian Militia, Private Darren Michael Krosney and Private Rodney Laurendeau, killed on August 21, 1983, on their way home from Dundurn, Saskatchewan, to Winnipeg, Manitoba. The undersigned ask that the documents be made available to the parents for their own peace of mind, so they can find out what actually happened on that tragic day and clear up some of the inconsistencies surrounding the various descriptions of the event.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-216, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (Protection of Innocent Human Life).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, this Bill will limit the right to have a therapeutic abortion to circumstances involving the actual physical health of the mother. Abortions are being misused; they were not intended to be used as a method of birth control. Over 70,000 infant Canadians were murdered last year through improper abortions and this Bill is designed to limit that activity.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Paul Wyatt Dick: for leave to introduce Bill C-217, an Act to amend the House of Commons Act and the Canada Elections Act (by-elections).


Some Hon. Members:: Explain.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, this reintroduces a Bill from the previous session. It seems apropos in that there are two vacancies in the House at the present time and Canada has the
Order Paper Questions
most antiquated and outdated by-election laws of any democratic country in the world. This Bill is designed to try and hurry the filling of those vacancies.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
The President of the Privy Council:
That Standing Order 69(3) be amended by adding the following:
"(d) On Official Languages policy and programs to act as members on the part of this House on the Joint Committee of both Houses, to consist of 15 members;"
And that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable, certain members to represent that House on the proposed Joint Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 25, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 370, 390 and 395.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did the Government commission the production of sets of books, including oak cabinets with brass plates, commemorating the patriation of Canada's Constitution and, if so (a) how many commemorative sets were commissioned (b) what was the total cost of production?
2.	Is the selling price of the commemorative sets $1075 each and, if so, does this price reflect the actual cost of production?
3.	Were volumes 1 to 10 allocated and, if so, to whom?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: 1. No.
2 and 3. Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Justice carry out a study to inquire into and review the cases of persons categorized as habitual criminals and, if so (a) how many cases

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
were studied (b) what was the estimated cost (c) during what time frame was the study accomplished (d) what was the purpose of the study?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes, the study is ongoing.
(a) 93, (b) $301,000, (c) July, 1983 to March, 1984, (d) To advise the Minister of Justice as to the status of individual habitual criminals, and to advise which, if any, should be relieved of that status because they no longer seem to pose a danger to society; and to recommend the future management by correctional authorities of each offender.


Mr. Howie: What total number of persons were employed by the offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada and what was the total cost in terms of (a) salaries (b) offices?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada are concerned:
Persons employed by the offices of the Information and Privacy Commissioners of Canada at December 1, 1983: 33.
(a)	Salary costs to December 31, 1983: $481,795.
(b)	Office cost to December 31, 1983: $287,422.*
* Payable by Department of Public Works and includes $149,608 fit-up costs.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in addressing my remarks to Bill C-9, when we adjourned at one o'clock 1 was stating that with any piece of legislation which deals with intelligence gathering and surveillance of individuals, first and foremost one must see that any necessary constraints and limitations are placed on the activities of the agency itself and not allow the powers of that agency to abuse or violate the basic rights and freedoms of Canadian. That should be basic to this Bill or any others of a similar nature.
Does this Bill meet that particular objective? Certainly it is an improvement over its predecessor, Bill C-157, but in my mind it still leaves a great deal to be desired. Let me illustrate what I mean. The Bill deals with the powers of investigation assigned to the new agency. Clause 21 states:
Where the Director or any employee designated by the Minister for the purpose believes, on reasonable grounds, that a warrant under this section is required to enable the Service to investigate a threat to the security of Canada or to perform its duties and functions under section 16, the Director or employee may, after having obtained the approval of the Minister, make an application in accordance with subsection (2) to a judge for a warrant under this section.
As a result, Federal Court justices would issue warrants for intrusive techniques such as electronic surveillance, mail opening and access to confidential information. Certain things would not be allowed, such as information under the Statistics Act. Nevertheless, the issuance of that warrant to carry out these particular techniques is, from my point of view, a dangerous provision for several reasons.
Nowhere in the Act, Mr. Speaker, is it clearly defined when a warrant might be granted. Words such as "espionage" and "sabotage" are used, but their meaning is not clearly outlined anywhere in the Bill. Therefore one has to ask how a judge would decide when to issue a warrant without a legal definition from which to proceed. It is the duty and responsibility of this House to pass laws which contain those definitions. Surely, Sir, it is Parliament, not the courts, which is the maker of laws.
Since such crucial words as "sabotage" and "espionage" are not defined, it is surely easy to see why so many people are concerned about this Bill. Groups, organizations and associations like the Civil Liberties Association are campaigning against this Bill. They are concerned about it. They rightly point out that almost any group in Canada would be investigated if the Government disagreed with their objectives and activities. That could extend to activities they might carry out on behalf of individuals in this country or in different parts of the world.
The Solicitor General has tried to argue that the Minister must have the right to judge when the gravity of this threat to security supersedes the need to violate the privacy of those affected when deciding to make an application for a warrant. He puts the one against the other and says he should have the right to decide when the gravity of the threat to security is the more important.
February 13, 1984

That is a very dangerous instrument in the hands of any individual. If I could be assured that every Minister opposite and any Minister at any time had the wisdom of Solomon, was totally honest and incapable of error, then perhaps that proposal could be given some consideration. I know and you know, Sir, that such is not the case. Nowhere has this been better illustrated than in the last few days with the bungling of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres), or in the recent letter episode carried on by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). Those examples painfully illustrate the abusive powers that this particular piece of legislation could be turned into.
Those two examples show that it is never the Ministers who have to bear the consequences of the act when government authority is abused; it is those who are the butt of their abuse who needlessly suffer.
One can also look at the negative effects the abusive tactics of Revenue Canada have had on the lives of hundreds of average Canadians. We can imagine the anguish, the anxiety and the despair to which many of them have been subjected. That is power in the hands of a Minister of the Crown. That is power in the hands of a Minister of the Crown when, as the Minister of Finance did recently, he used his office and information which he had in confidence to make statements against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney)-statements which he could not later substantiate, simply because we have a Minister of Finance more concerned with politics than with justice.
Furthermore, if one were to look at the potential for abuse, one need look no further than the infamous case of Peter Treu. Here was a Canadian on whom information was collected in secret; he was charged in secret and his trial was held in secret. In his case all the basic rules of justice were disregarded-the basic rules such as being innocent until guilt is proven and the right to face your accusers. Those things were disregarded. He was eventually cleared of all charges, nevertheless his reputation, his job, his savings and his personal life were all wrecked because of far-reaching powers which were beyond the rule of law.
Examples like these frighten me and frighten a lot of Canadians, Mr. Speaker. They show that a single Minister ought not to be given the sole responsibility of directing an agency which has such extensive powers as the one presently proposed will have.
It has been correctly said that information is power. I believe that no single Minister ought to have the power over people's lives that this Bill seeks to assign. There simply are not the checks and balances that we need. The Solicitor General has argued that case and has said that the abuse of power would be impossible as the agency would be subjected to civilian review by three different bodies. He thinks those are sufficient checks and balances.
The first of these bodies which would review the power of the agency is the Inspector General, who would review the operational activities of the service and monitor its compliance with operational policies. As such, we are told that the Inspec-
Security Intelligence Service
tor General is allowed access to all information that the service has, except for Cabinet documents. I ask you, Sir, how can the Inspector General monitor the activities of the service and ensure compliance when he will be unable to see the Cabinet document which may affect the service? This is particularly important since the Minister has direct control over the service and must authorize all applications for warrants.
If this implication were not so serious, one would almost have to laugh at such a provision. As far as 1 can see, the Inspector General would be a watchdog without teeth. He would never have all the necessary information at his disposal.
I would say that the same situation holds true for the second monitoring body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It would generally review the performance by the service of its duties and functions under the Act. That would be its responsibility. As well, it would investigate complaints, hold hearings dealing with security assessments and file reports with the Minister in Parliament. However, once again Cabinet documents are not included as part of the information to which the committee would have access. Thus, once again the effectiveness of the committee is limited as it will never have all the facts.
Finally, the Bill would provide for a third group. It would provide for a review of the substance and operation of the new service by a parliamentary committee five years after proclamation-five years after proclamation, Mr. Speaker. What this sounds like to me is very much like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped.
We have three steps which the Minister has set up which he says will eliminate the potential for any abuse under the Bill. Sir, I do not believe that they have the necessary power. As in cases like this, there is a very fine balance between the threat to security and the right to privacy of every individual. That is what we are talking about here. While Bill C-9 comes much closer to achieving that balance than did its predecessor, Bill C-157, nevertheless I feel it is far from satisfactory in this regard.
The language in the Bill is ill-defined. It leaves the door open to unnecessary and to potentially dangerous abuse. There is far too much in the way of discretionary powers given to the Minister and to the Cabinet. It assigns far-reaching powers to the agency but provides far from adequate provisions for the monitoring of the agency's activities.
The rule of law has always been one of the linchpins of our system of government. This Bill would create conditions which would violate those principles. For this reason, Members on this side of the House simply cannot with a clear conscience permit the Bill to pass in its present form.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care to the thoughtful remarks of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). I share many of the concerns she has expressed. I should like to ask a specific

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
question about one element that the Hon. Member highlighted and that is the question of oversight and accountability.
The Hon. Member will know that the McDonald Commission strongly recommended the establishment of a small parliamentary oversight committee made up of members of the Opposition to ensure that ultimately the new security service would be accountable to Parliament and not just to a specific Minister and a hand appointed body by the Minister of the day. I should like to ask the Hon. Member whether she supports the establishment of a parliamentary committee to oversee the operations of the new security service as recommended by the McDonald Commission.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that I am very sympathetic to that particular proposal. I would want to make sure, however, that it is truly an independent parliamentary committee and not one which has been co-opted by the Minister of the day to serve his or her purposes.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I take it, then, that the Hon. Member would agree with the appointment of such a committee providing that these safeguards for independence were in fact met. Is that correct?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, certainly, and I would like to examine it. As I am sure the Hon. Member knows, there are certain other jurisdictions in other countries which have such a set-up. 1 would like us take a look at them and see what are the best aspects of this kind of operation in other countries which we could bring into our own system.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I was likewise very interested in the remarks of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), in particular her comments with respect to the imprecision and inadequacies of the Bill. Will the Hon. Member tell us whether she and her Party will be preparing for the committee, when it meets, a series of amendments which will put into precise form the exact wording she would like to see in the Bill so that we can judge whether those proposed amendments in fact accomplish our ends more effectively than the words which are in the present Bill?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) that we have a lot of difficulty with this Bill. We do think it should be much more precise. However, I do not feel at this point we should say "Here are the amendments we suggest". We feel there are a great many people in this country who have something to contribute to the definitions which should go into this Bill. They have not all been heard from as yet, by any means. After we hear what they have to say, I would invite the Hon. Member to come along to the committee and listen to the amendments which we will be presenting.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I also want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands
(Miss MacDonald), for another first-rate contribution in this particular debate. She is always germane and always speaking on behalf of the interests of the average citizen in our country. She did not disappoint us with respect to this important issue.
In connection with the matter which she raised with respect to the amendments in the committee-and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) has alluded to this-Hon. Members and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) I am sure will be happy to know that we are prepared to come forward with specific and precise recommendations by way of amendments to the existing legislation. I feel that there has been an enormous amount of time spent on drafting the predecessor Bill and this Bill, and, unfortunately, it still is not right.
I have tried to bring out some points with respect to the preposterous conclusions, as I see them, which one arrives at regarding the present definition of "threats to national security". The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East, as a former Solicitor General, will understand that these are difficult and complex issues. However, the opportunity has now been given to us. After 15 years of a subject being considered by a variety of commissions and a Senate committee, we in the House of Commons, the elected representatives of the people of Canada, now have an opportunity for input. We take our responsibility seriously.
I ask rhetorically of the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East whether or not he wants to support legislation which gives a mandate to the security service to obtain information with respect to people who support Solidarity in Poland, who support the Afghan rebels, who support the Sandinista rebels in Central America? This is the conclusion one has to come to if one studies clearly a definition of the threat to the security of Canada. We have concerns and apprehensions with respect to these definitions. We will be up front. We will be there with our amendments and proposals at the appropriate time. However, these are the issues which have to be discussed on the floor of the House of Commons. We have had a lot of different proposals brought forward leading to the present Bill. There have been a number of changes. But it is too facile for a person to stand up and say "Let's shut our eyes and move ahead", without reasonable and adequate consideration and deliberation.
I simply want to assure Hon. Members of this House that, as far as amendments are concerned, we are considering them and we will in fact be doing our duty as loyal Members of Her Majesty's Opposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. I would first ask Hon. Members to relate their comments in some fashion to the speech of the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the answers given by the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, I would ask them both, especially the principal speaker, if she does not agree that we had better get on with the job of
February 13, 1984

coming up with some definitions and some mandate, because at the present time the security service under the RCMP is operating with no legislative mandate. There is a mandate which was put out by the Cabinet in 1976. However, the security service is now operating with very imprecise guidelines and no legislative mandate. Does the Hon. Member not agree that it is urgent we deal with these matters and come up with some very precise and appropriate legislation with respect to these problems?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern which the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East has with regard to the present situation. However, I do have to tell him that it was not the Conservative Party which brought in that abhorrent Bill C-157. It took months of hearings in order to knock it down and destroy it. That in fact set the whole process back by months-by light-years.
What I would like to be assured of in return is that when the Conservative Party brings in proper amendments, and when it presents to the committee those responsible amendments, the Members of the Liberal Party, who will be in the majority on that committee, will just not automatically vote them down because their Minister says "I don't want anything to change the way in which I presented this present Bill".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has ended. Debate. The Hon. Member for Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker Donald Smith, Lord Strathcona-


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, i wonder if the Chair might check its speakers' list. I believe the turn has come in rotation for a member of this Party to speak, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I would be pleased to check that list. However, I saw only one Hon. Member rising and 1 recognized the Hon. Member who was rising. I will check my list to make sure that the usual rotation is followed. The Hon. Member for Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Edmonton-Strathcona, Mr. Speaker, named after Donald Smith who came from your part of the world. Sir. He then was knighted and that is when the riding became "Strathcona".


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He came from Scotland.


David Kilgour: I know he was from Scotland but somehow he went to Montreal after he left the West and a lot of people identify him with the Acting Speaker's part of the world.
I would like to start with the theme which was raised by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands
Security Intelligence Service
(Miss MacDonald). The problem that we on this side of the House have is that the predecessor Bill was so bad. 1 think most Hon. Members on this side would concede that this Bill is considerably better than the last one. Bill C-157 would qualify for an entry in Ripley's Believe It or Not or the Guiness World Book of Records for perhaps the most draconian piece of legislation ever introduced in the House of Commons. It was so bad that the Government did not have the courage to introduce it in the House. They took it through the Chamber down the hall. It was properly ripped to shreds by one and all who appeared before the Senate committee to deal with it.
My role here today is simply to indicate some of the matters which will be brought out by Members on this side as causing concern if the Bill gets to committee. Starting at the beginning, Section 12(2) in the Bill basically says that the security service is not restricted from "remaining informed through public sources" about the political, economic and social environment within Canada. On this side of the House we would ask why the Senate recommendation was not followed in this respect. If, as the Senate said, the words in the Bill of which 1 am speaking are unnecessary, why are they still in the Bill? Perhaps the Minister will be kind enough to clarify that at an early point.
A little farther on in the definition section of the Bill before us it says that threats to the security of Canada are to be defined as "espionage or sabotage against Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada". On this side of the House we ask why it is that espionage and sabotage were not defined in the Bill we have now. It is true that sabotage is defined in the Criminal Code. Is that the definition that is intended in this Bill? Hon. Members will be curious about that too. We wonder why the term "espionage" is not defined in this Bill. What does the word "espionage" mean? The dictionary definition is essentially spying. Yet spying, according to Section 3 of the Official Secrets Act, is very broadly defined. I ask the Minister why espionage is not defined in the Bill.
The third point I would raise is that the predecessor Bill defined unacceptable behaviour as constituting, among other things, the threat or use of acts of violence against persons or property, and so on. Does throwing a tomato at a politician constitute an act of violence? I am sure most of us in this Chamber have had something thrown at us, if not a tomato. We will take the position in committee that the definition is too broad. A term such as "strictly necessary" should be used in the Bill, as was recommended by the Senate committee. Many provincial attorneys general voiced concern about this part of the Bill, feeling that that definition was too broad. Several witnesses before the Senate Committee urged the Government to change the definition to deal only with threat or use of serious violence, such acts as would not involve the throwing of a tomato at a politician.
My fourth point deals again with the definition of subversive behaviour. The previous Bill defines this as activities directed toward the undermining by covert unlawful acts directed

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada. What does this say about legitimate dissent or protest? Witnesses before the Senate committee stated that subversion should not be a concern of the security service but rather should remain a matter for investigation under the Criminal Code.
The fifth matter I would like to deal with is the section dealing with international affairs and defence. In the old Bill it is Section 18. The new section is essentially the same but incorporates the Senate recommendations, except for the suggestion that the service have a monopoly on operational work respecting this type of intelligence gathering. That is Section 16. The question will be asked in committee as to whether the service should be engaged in this type of work which is not directly linked to the security of Canada. It will be asked what the parameters of this provision are. Testimony before the Senate committee said that this section will be used to gather economic, commercial, social and other data about other nations. It is important to note that warrants can be used to allow the service to use techniques for this section. We ask how the judge determines whether to issue a warrant. Does it consist of a security service agent walking into a judge's office and asking him if he would mind signing a warrant which has been approved by the Solicitor General? What a judge will consider and under what circumstances a judge will issue a warrant are serious questions.
The sixth point, Mr. Speaker, is the question of Section 21, which deals with warrants and states a number of things. For example, a provision is added to stipulate that an application for a warrant can only be made with the approval of a Minister. Safeguards or guidelines mentioned by the Senate are to be incorporated. We think that is a good thing. The maximum time limit for a warrant is one year. Confidential records kept pursuant to the Statistics Act, such as census forms, are not subject to warrants. Again it is a question of balancing the gravity of the threat to security and the right of the citizen to privacy.
The Government takes the position that if the Minister has to approve the application for a warrant, he or she will only do so if the circumstances justify such a step. With respect to the maximum period of a warrant, the McDonald Commission recommended a maximum period of 180 days. In this Bill the maximum period is a year. Questions will be asked as to why the McDonald Commission maximum has been so exceeded.
With respect to the Statistics Act, we ask why it is that Statistics Act material is now exempt under the Bill, whereas it was subject to warrant under the previous Bill. We ask whether there should be an annual report on warrant activities such as there is with respect to the Official Secrets Act.
The seventh subject matter I would like to deal with is the question of Section 20. I am talking about the protection of employees. Section 20 states that the Director and employees have the same protection under the law as peace officers. The McDonald Commission recommended that federal and provincial Governments give service employees various exemptions
from specific laws. The question again comes up whether provincial attorneys general who administer the criminal law have the right to information of illegalities committed by the service, perhaps subject to the withholding of certain information if the federal Government believes it to be contrary to the security of Canada to release it. We have concerns in that area.
My eighth point revolves around the question of management control and responsibility. This is obviously an important area. The Bill deletes the provision which gave the director the final word on targets of the service and on information the service would disclose to the Government. If you have had a chance to look at it, you will recall that the present section says that the Minister may issue written instructions to the Director. What about oral directions? How would these come to the attention of the review committee? Should all directions be in writing? If oral directions are sufficient, would there be an incentive for the Minister not to reduce his directions to writing? I hope the Minister will have good answers to those questions when the Bill goes to the Justice Committee.
The ninth concern I would raise relates to Clause 30 which makes it clear that the Inspector General monitors compliance by the service with its operational policies as well as reviewing operational activities.
I am pleased that the Minister is in the House because 1 would like to ask him why the Senate recommendations were not followed in this area. How can the Inspector General monitor the activities of the service and ensure compliance when he will be unable to see Cabinet documents which may affect the service? I ask the Minister to explain that to us at an early date.
My tenth concern relates to Clause 34 which establishes a Security Intelligence Review Committee which would be composed of up to five and not less than three members. Again, the review committee is not allowed access to Cabinet documents in control of the service. How can the committee effectively oversee all the operations of the service when these documents are withheld? The expanded duties of the review committee are set out in line with the Senate report, but I remind the House that the McDonald Commission would have established a joint parliamentary committee to oversee the service.
My last point deals with the question of the Security Offences Act. The RCMP retains primary responsibility but the Solicitor General may enter into arrangements with other police forces respecting the investigation of security offences. The Senate recommendation for the role of the federal Attorney General was followed. In conclusion, I would simply ask if there should be a duty on the part of the RCMP to consult other forces, as the Senate committee suggested?
The concern which has been expressed by other Members is that this matter has dragged on for 15 years. In that time there have been several royal commissions. There have been problems with morale in the security service as well as problems
February 13, 1984

with respect to the effectiveness of our security service. Finally, a Bill has been introduced after 15 years.
We on this side believe that we would be derelict in our duty, as the Party which expects to form the next Government when an election is called, if we did not give this Bill reasonably close scrutiny before it goes to the Justice Committee. We put the Government on notice again that we will be giving it very close scrutiny when it comes before the Justice Committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order. Before we proceed to the 10-minute question period, I would like to draw to the attention of Hon. Members Citation 381 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, which reads as follows:
On the motion for the second reading, it is out of order to discuss the clauses of the Bill.
I think Hon. Members could phrase their speeches in such a way as not to make specific references to clauses in the Bill. There will be a 10-minute period for questions and comments.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, in his very interesting remarks, made reference to two key elements of this legislation which he indicated were of considerable concern. One was with respect to some of the powers being accorded to this new agency, and the second concerned the element of oversight. We in this Party see those two elements, the unprecedented new powers which are accorded to this agency and the importance of parliamentary oversight, as being two of the most essential elements of any Bill that would establish a new security agency.
Certainly the Solicitor General should be aware that if in fact he wants this Bill to go to committee he should be prepared to consider amendments to those two key elements which the McDonald Commission itself singled out as being the heart of legislation in this area. Certainly this Bill must be carefully studied in committee because we want to examine its elements closely. Let me emphasize those two key elements again. The first is the question of parliamentary oversight and accountability which was seen by the McDonald Commission as being the cornerstone of accountability in a security agency in a democratic society. The second element concerns the use of powers, particularly intrusive powers, against Canadians who are suspected of subversion.
As the Solicitor General will know, it is in this particular area that the McDonald Commission strongly emphasized that intrusive techniques should not in fact be permitted.
Let me ask the Member a question with respect to one of these intrusive techniques. It concerns the matter of opening first class mail. The Member has been quoted on a number of occasions as being in support of giving law enforcement agencies the power to open first class mail. Undoubtedly he will know that the Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) is strongly opposed to granting those powers and that his colleague, the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence), has indicated that he supports extending those powers.
Security Intelligence Service
In light of his own comments with respect to granting the power to law enforcement agencies to open first class mail, does he believe that the new security intelligence agency should have the power to open first class mail despite the clear recommendation of the McDonald Commission that it should not have such powers?


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, how the question relates to the preamble, which took approximately three quarters of the Member's comments, eludes me but I will speak to the last part of the question. It is true that I have personally expressed the opinion that I think that Members of the drug section of our RCMP should be permitted to open letters when they have a strong prima facie case that they contain heroin or cocaine. Nevertheless, I have always added to that view that they should obtain a court order before doing so. In other words, if someone in Bangkok ships a gram of heroin to someone in my riding and they have seventeen witnesses that that first class envelope contains heroin, I think somebody in Burnaby should be able to go to a judge and get a court order authorizing the opening of that letter.
I stand to be corrected, but to my knowledge there is no other country in the world where the mail could not be opened in such circumstances. I would remind the Hon. Member from British Columbia, where the hard drug problem is so severe, that a study done in Baltimore a few years ago showed that approximately 233 heroin addicts committed more than 500,000 crimes in the City of Baltimore over an 11 year period. I do not think I have to tell the Hon. Member, who knows this, that the general consensus is that people on heroin commit many of the break and enter offences, thefts and robberies that occur across Canada, particularly in British Columbia. It is on that basis that I have advocated opening the mail.
I will not answer my friend' question with respect to the security service because, as he knows, this matter is no longer within my responsibility. Therefore I do not have to answer the question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, while it may no longer be within the responsibility of the Hon. Member, I certainly think Members of the House would be most interested to hear his views about whether or not the new security intelligence agency should have the power to open the first class mail of Canadians. Again, I ask the Member if he believes that that is a power which should be accorded to the security intelligence agency, despite the clear recommendation of the McDonald Commission that that should not in fact be the case?


David Kilgour: The same answer, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, I have a similar question that I would like to direct to the Member who just spoke. I think his constituents have a right to know first, from where he got those figures that he was quoting. Second, how would the evidence of 17 witnesses in Bangkok that a gram of heroin in an envelope arriving in Burnaby be relevant to this debate? I fail to see any relevance whatsoever to the question asked by my

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
colleague. Perhaps he could give us the name of the report he quoted from regarding heroin addicts involved in that. I am sure many of his constituents would be interested in knowing what relevance that has.
1 think his constituents would also like to know his views on opening first class mail, as he was asked by the Member for Burnaby. I also am interested in knowing them. The Member often writes letters to the editor in my constituency which contain scurrilous information. 1 think his constituents and other Canadians have a right to know whether he has a view. Perhaps he does not have a view, but 1 think Members of the House and other Canadians have a right to know what his views are on the opening of first class mail by a security service or the law enforcement agencies in this country.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) will lean over and ask the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) what I said, I think he will discover that I said it would take 17 witnesses in Burnaby or in Skeena to say that a letter is coming from Bangkok to the Hon. Member's riding which contains a quantity of heroin. Otherwise, he would not get the warrant, and no one would ever advocate giving a judge authority to issue a warrant other than in such circumstances.
1 do not have with me the source of the study done in Baltimore. I think it was done by the University of Maryland. If my friend is seriously interested in the answer, I would be happy if he would pursue that with me afterwards and I will try to get the source of the study for him. If the Hon. Member is disputing the accuracy of the study, if he is disputing that heroin addicts cause a lot of the crime in his riding or in the riding of the Hon. Member for Burnaby, I would put it to both of them that that is one of the reasons we expect to win both of their seats in the upcoming election.


James Ross Fulton: I will be very brief, Mr. Speaker. We recognize that the Hon. Member has serious problems dealing with fact rather than fancy, but the question is very simple. Does he think that the legislation before the House, Bill C-9, should go forward with the security service given the right to open first class mail of Canadians? The question is very simple. I am sure constituents in Edmonton would like to know whether the Hon. Member can answer the question in the House of Commons. Otherwise, I would advise them to get him out of the House of Commons.


David Kilgour: I give the same answer as the one 1 gave to the previous question, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) support a requirement that, prior to the placement of an informer in a group in Canada, a group which may be suspected of activities contrary to the national security, broadly speaking, there should be a requirement to obtain some form of judicial warrant?


David Kilgour: I feel as if I were on the witness stand, Mr. Speaker. I know how the Government must feel. The answer to the question as worded by the Hon. Member for Burnaby is, yes.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my other colleagues and other Hon. Members in the House in participating in the debate on Bill C-9.


James Ross Fulton: "Canine". It is named after a dog.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Simon Leendert de Jong: First, I would like to reflect briefly on the type and the rate of social change occurring in our society and in the world at large. All those who are interested in the social sciences see the tremendous change in attitude, culture, economic and political forums that have been occurring in the last number of years. There has been a very rapid change in social thinking and customs. We talk about technological change, economic change, social change, cultural change and political change. We see a tremendous amount of human displacement. People who are given training in certain trades are, all of a sudden finding those trades no longer valid today. What about people who have been brought up holding beliefs in a certain cultural milieu and setting who find that many of those cultural beliefs are no longer practised by society as a whole? The coming generation, the first of many generations to come, through the revolution in communications and in television, have a high level of expectation in life and a high level of material expectation. Yet on the other side of the coin we see the ability to satisfy those expectations being decreased. We see the possibilities of massive unemployment in the years ahead. People will not be able to find meaningful work or find a meaningful niche in life.
This is a recipe for social disorder and a situation in which many human beings not being able to fulfil their basic expectations are displaced and will react with anger and, at times, with violence. There have been various surveys conducted. I think of a Decima survey done approximately a year ago that shows the degree to which Canadians have lost faith in the traditional institutions. They have lost faith in Parliament, in law enforcement agencies, in government and in the churches. People have lost faith in the traditional social institutions that used to provide the social glue for society. Those were the institutions that kept us together and formulated and helped bring forth shared basic beliefs and value structures.
I mention all of these because I think they are important when we discuss security legislation such as the legislation before us today. We should have some appreciation of the larger context in which society is moving. I can see how some Members, and obviously some government members, react to this in terms of fear and panic. They feel we must have in place greater police powers to attempt to control and even suppress those social changes. My contention is that you cannot in the end suppress social change. We are living in a world of very fast social change, and no amount of secret police and police activities can really suppress social change.
February 13, 1984

What you can do, of course, in a short period of time is to hold back social change. But, like water building up behind a dam, all this will do is to create a power and a force that at some stage will break through and smash down those forces opposed to an actual historic change occurring.
Not only do we see rapid social change within our own borders but we also see it throughout the world, and we also see rising expectations by most of humanity. Most of humanity will no longer put up with ignorance, starvation and political suppression. People will no longer accept the feudal system in which a few suppress the many. On an international scale, we see rising expectations forcing us to change, which very often ends up in revolution. Those who are in control of power do not allow those changes to occur. They use armies and secret police to suppress those changes. But in the end the will of people cannot be stopped. Through revolution many of these changes will come about so that people will begin to realize the hopes and expectations they have.
The security legislation we have in front of us today, I feel, is an attempt by the Government to try to control social change. It opens up the possibility for the Government to use the secret police to attempt to suppress and stop social change.
The way to help accommodate social change, Mr. Speaker, is to anticipate it and to realize that there will be many people without jobs and the ability to earn income in a meaningful way. The solution to that problem is not more police power but, rather, to be a little more creative and to have some political will to put programs into place so that displaced people will be able to find a meaningful role for themselves in their lives. That is really the solution to social change which Canadians are experiencing.
What we have, Mr. Speaker, I feel is an attempt at suppression. Bill C-9 has three essential elements. It proposes a mandate; it spells out powers; and as well it acts as a type of control over the secret service agency which the Government wishes to establish.
Let me first deal with its general mandate. We have seen that even a Conservative attorney general, like the Attorney General for the Province of Ontario, finds that the definitions in the Bill are still quite dangerous and vague, as he says. He further stated that the definition of national security remained "flabby". Also he was concerned about the reference to foreign-influenced activities, because he is afraid it could be applied to foreign multinational corporations doing business in Canada. 1 understand and sympathize with the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario. Many people involved in civil liberties associations and Hon. Members of the House, both in the Conservative Party and in the New Democratic Party, have expressed fear about the broad definitions. I would not be surprised if many government Members had the same fear in their hearts.
Under the definitions in this Bill, various illegal strikes or activities by Canadians in support of the African National Congress or organizations that may wish to combat the Soviet
Security Intelligence Service
invasion in Afghanistan or organizations that are involved in raising money for resistance groups in El Salvador, could be classified as illegal activities. All the people involved in the support of such organizations could find themselves being snooped upon to the full extent of the power included in the Bill.
For example, the Canadian Farm Survival Association could be considered as having engaged in illegal activities when it saw that high interest rates were forcing farmers into bankruptcy and conducted auctions in farmyards where tractors were sold for $1 or so. In the broad definition, that group could be considered as subversive because there is no doubt its economic activities had political overtones.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is absolutely false, and you know it.


Simon Leendert de Jong: That Association, could be considered subversive.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is an insult to the RCMP.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Illegal strikes or walkouts, in the broad definition, could be considered subversive activities because they bring into question the accepted established methods of political and economic solutions in the country. The definitions are so broad that anyone who acts in a direct way against the political and economic power structure in Canada could be defined as being subversive and be snooped upon.
The second area of major concern is the type of powers the Bill allows. Canadian citizens could have their conversations bugged, their mail opened and even have the confidentiality of their confessions with their priests invaded. Their homes could be broken into and searched and their confidential records could be invaded, even though there is not the slightest suggestion that any lawbreaking has occurred. The powers of the Bill are so broad that a fair-minded, average Canadian person must be frightened when he or she looks at what Bill C-9 makes legal.
As I mentioned before, the Bill is not designed to gather information when a law has been broken or a particular law anticipates to be broken and there is some criminal activity involved. It is really an intelligence gathering process. It does not have as its end result the laying of charges against anyone. It is just the gathering of intelligence.
Certainly the United States is more threatened by the acts of terrorists both within its borders and from outside. Its citizens have greater protection than we in Canada, especially if this piece of legislation goes through. In the United States, for example, the FBI has to persuade the judge that there are probable grounds to believe that the suspect or group is engaged in a specified illegal activity. In Bill C-9, our standard for a warrant would be lower. It would be "reasonable grounds", and no particular crime would have to be specified. In the United States also, the judge has to be convinced that an electronic interception will produce evidence of a crime. The Canadian Bill will not tie the interception to the gathering of evidence of criminal activity. In our system a warrant could

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
be issued that would enable the CSIS to investigate a threat. The definition of what is a threat is so wide open that it could include just about any group. We see awesome powers being given to a civilian authority, with very vague definitions as to what are its mandate and its overall purpose.
A third area begs the question-after we have given this tremendous and awesome power to this group of individuals, what type of check or oversight exists? In terms of the judiciary, not very much. Yes, they have to obtain a judicial warrant before they proceed with an investigation, before they open files, tap telephones or break into homes at any hour of the day or night, but the judge really has nothing to go on because the definitions are so broad that he has no choice but to become a rubber stamp. No reasonable grounds have to be offered to show that a crime is being committed or that in some definite period something illegal is occurring or will occur; nothing like that. It is just the interest of some agent of the Government to have a little more information about what a person does, with whom he corresponds, what are his health records or what are his bank records. There is no judicial check, but rather a judicial rubber stamp.
Then we come to the review committee, and we must ask the question as to how effective it will be. Our claim is that there is not enough control over the CSIS. The review committee has no access to Cabinet documents. A recommendation which was made over and over again, even by Senator Pitfield, was that it should at least have access to Government documents. He recognized that there were many ways for the Cabinet and the security agency to get around the review agency, and that to set up a review committee without allowing it full access to the documents would be hampering it from the start. It really becomes a farce. It becomes window dressing and gives the illusion that the review committee is an actual place, when in fact it does not have the ability to look at all documents pertinent to its review of the intelligence service.
What we have here is another piece of double-think, another piece out of George Orwell's novel Nineteen Eighty-Four where the show and the pretense are one thing and the actual reality is indeed something else. The major shortcoming in the Bill in terms of its overview is that Parliament is just a eunuch as far as the security service is concerned. Members of Parliament will not have access in a meaningful way to the deliberations and activities of this organization. The Government can claim that Members of Parliament cannot be trusted like the review agency cannot be trusted; even though it is composed of either former members of Cabinet or members of the Privy Council, it cannot be trusted with all the documents, and Members of Parliament can be trusted even less. So much for the Government's trust in the democratic system. The very reason it is setting up this so-called agency is to protect our democratic system. But it has no belief in the democratic system itself.
One must ask the basic question of why the Government is going ahead with this legislation now. Does the present Criminal Code not give tremendous powers to the RCMP to investigate and prosecute criminal cases? If the Government has any reason to believe that there is a national crisis, that our democratic system is in danger, that we need a special security force to investigate Canadians, to tap their telephones and to break into their homes, it should at least have the decency to tell Parliament what the need is. Instead, we get silence from the Government benches. Not one Government Member today during the debate has stood up and given any explanation as to why we should have this Bill.
Perhaps it is a hypothetical explanation. Perhaps something can occur that would require us to have these powers. I suggest that the Government's thinking in all of this has been hypothetical. When the Minister asks for a judicial warrant, it is not based on a fact but based on a hypothetical case. By the same reasoning, the Government is introducing this legislation based on hypothetical cases rather than on a real need.
The Government can say that that is the McDonald Commission recommended. That argument is a farce. It is 1984 double-think. Yes, McDonald recommended a civilian security agency, but McDonald also recommended a security agency with proper and decent checks to it. The Government has chosen to ignore that totally. McDonald found a serious shortcoming in our existing situation. The Government used that as an excuse to legalize illegal activities.
What the Bill does in the end is to create a legal framework for this and future governments to maintain themselves in power through undemocratic means. The very instrument designed to protect our democracy, free speech, judicial system and way of life becomes the very instrument to destroy our democracy, free speech, judicial system, customs and way of life. This is a bad Bill. It stinks. The Government has to be stopped.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has argued that threats to the national security of Canada are hypothetical and, therefore, we do not require these powers, except to destroy democracy. He is very far out of touch with reality. I cannot imagine many Canadians being fooled, even by his eloquent rhetoric, into believing that this is a Bill which the Government wants to use to destroy the country and to destroy our democracy.
1 want to ask the Hon. Memver a question. He talks about hypothetical threats. He should know that there are real threats to our security. I want to put to him a problem and ask how he would handle it. If we received information, as we sometimes do in Government, which we believed, that KGB members or known terrorists have come to Canada, and we assessed the basis of that belief and came to agree with it, does he think we should have no authority at all to engage in surveillance of them because they are not necessarily committing a crime or that we do not have evidence of that crime? Is he suggesting that there should not be authority, that there are not sensible reasons why their mail, under proper safeguards, should not be investigated? He may not like the safeguards in the Bill. I want to raise with him the proposition that surely even he, as fanatically anti-government as he is, might recog-
February 13, 1984

nize that there are some circumstances in which KGB members or members of other hostile intelligence services may come to this country, and that we would get credible evidence of it, or that international terrorist groups may come here bearing in mind that the Olympics will take place in North America this year, that His Holiness the Pope will be visiting our country this year, that Her Majesty will be here in August, in all of these circumstances-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: We have the police.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member reminds me that we have the police. I am not asking whether we should go after them with police methods. 1 know he would agree with that. What I am asking is, if we know about them, is there not justification for having access to their mail and justification for being able to put them under surveillance without knowing whether they intend to engage in particular crimes?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat amazed at the question that has been put to me. First of all, it seems to suggest that the present law enforcement agencies are totally inadequate to handle-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: That is not what I said.


Simon Leendert de Jong: 1 agree there could be very illegitimate threats against Canadian society, against His Holiness the Pope when visiting Canada and the Olympics being held in North America. These could conceivably be targets for foreign terrorists. I quite agree. Is the Minister telling us that at present the RCMP does not have the ability to monitor and take precautions against these foreign threats?
The second point I wish to make is that when the Minister introduced the legislation, I wish had followed the American example more closely and had treated Canadian citizens and landed immigrants somewhat differently from foreign agents. Under this Bill Canadian citizens can be spied upon, their phones tapped, their homes broken into under some pretty, vague definition in this Act, even though there may be no hard evidence that these Canadian citizens are connected with an attempt to assassinate the Pope or carry out some terrorist activity, but are suspect in a vague way, and their basic freedoms denied. 1 wish the Minister would explain the reason for lumping Canadian citizens in with foreign terrorists, KGB, CIA or other agents.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has indeed exposed himself as someone who is unwilling to deal with a very real example. He was asked a question. He is testing the hypothesis. Let me assert again that there are real threats to our national security. We do occasionally get evidence, which we believe, of foreign hostile intelligence officers and members of terrorists groups who come into and through this country. He asks why the police cannot go after them with the normal warrant under the Criminal Code. Under the Criminal Code, as was pointed out, we need to have a reasonable belief of a specific crime or of a criminal plan. In the example I am putting to him, the only evidence we have is that they are here,
Security Intelligence Service
that they happen to be in our country and that they are terrorists. I am asking for his help. I am asking him and Parliament to agree that in circumstances like that, with the kinds of safeguards I am willing to talk about in committee, develop, or change, in that type of environment there should be justification for getting a wiretap without evidence of a specific crime being planned by the particular terrorist group or hostile intelligence officers, that we should be able to open their mail under all the safeguards that this Parliament imposes. Those are simple questions. The Hon. Member avoided them the first time, and I know he will avoid them again.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister heard my response correctly. First, I admit, and no one in the House would be so foolish as to deny it, that there are potential threats that could occur against Canada from foreign terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies. Given what we have in the world today that is a "given".
The Minister has not answered my question. Why does he include Canadian citizens in the same bunch as foreign terrorists and foreign intelligence agencies? It is one thing to be aware of a foreign terrorist coming into Canada, to intercept his mail and keep tab on his telephone calls. It is quite another thing for a Canadian citizen, who has not broken any law, one who maybe collects money for rebels in El Salvador or Afghanistan, to be considered potentially subversive because that citizen is involved directly in some way in overthrowing a legally constituted government somewhere else. This Bill has lumped all those people together, and I am afraid the Minister has not as yet realized the point we are trying to make.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I guess in the course of this debate I can answer the question, if that will assist the Hon. Member to answer mine. He is asking, why should one consider that Canadians might be capable of acts of terrorism or acts of espionage and subversion? 1 think that just to put that question is to answer it. One likes to have faith in one's countrymen, but we know, our history tells us, that there are Canadians capable of subversive activities, acts of terrorism and espionage. That is the reason the Bill addresses that possibility, and I think he is very naive to deny it. I do not think his constituents or others following this debate will fail to have noticed that he is refusing to address a question which I am asking Parliament to address in dealing with this Bill. I am asking Parliament to recognize circumstances where mail opening and surveillance might be justified without proof or evidence of a crime. He refuses to address that, and that is typical of the NDP.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief, but the Minister's comments require long answers. I thought I had given some of those answers in my remarks.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Come on, yes or no.


Simon Leendert de Jong: We want to make the distinction, as it is made in the United States and most other jurisdictions, between

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
domestic terrorists and subversives and foreign terrorists and subversives. Part of our criticism of this legislation is that it does not make that distinction. The point we want to make is that the Criminal Code already gives the police ample powers to open the mail of domestic terrorists-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It does not.


Simon Leendert de Jong: -and to listen to their telephone conversations.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It does not.


Simon Leendert de Jong: This Government has over 800,000 files on Canadians, and it tells me it wants more. Surely, Mr. Speaker, enough is enough.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell)- Fisheries-Future of independent fish companies in Nova Scotia; the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson)- Royal Canadian Mounted Police-McDonald Commission findings of law-breaking-Decision not to take disciplinary action, (b) Request for withdrawal of security service legislation; the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm)- National Revenue-Department's seizure of taxpayers' assets, (b) Taxpayers' costs in appealing assessments.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the Motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words in connection with Bill C-9. I think the proper procedure is to debate this Bill openly and get as much representations as we can from the people of Canada. I think I would be very safe in saying that the people of Canada generally are concerned about having a good intelligence service, one of the best. They
are also concerned about whether it is done through the RCMP or by a new body called the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Some great nations have had separate services. The United States and England have separate services, and that seems to work out very satisfactorily. I think there are some advantages to having a separate intelligence service, as well as some advantages in having it remain with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If the people of Canada generally, and this House of Commons in particular, decide to separate the service from the RCMP, I do not think it will be a blot on the RCMP, not at all. We all admire the RCMP; they have done a tremendous job in policing, and they still have a tremendous job to do. But if the decision is made to separate the service, then I think we have to institute safeguards concerning accountability, in order to make sure the intelligence service is checking on spies and fifth column activities, not on the people who have as great a desire as we do to build a great country but who have different ideas on how it should be done.
We have to be very careful in that respect, Mr. Speaker. Canada is a young country compared to the European and Asiatic countries. We are still in the developing stage in many respects. My friend, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Footh-ills (Mr. Thacker), was speaking this morning about political groups which arise from time to time. Some of them have disappeared, some have made a contribution and then disappeared, and some never got off the ground. But I do not think we should ever stop any group of people in Canada from using the means they think is best to build a great country. All the wisdom is not wrapped up in the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, the Socialist Party or the Communist Party. People have different ideas and different views. Sometimes they bring a fresh look to problems which arise.
In the early days of Alberta, after the Liberal administration ruled the Province for about ten or 11 years, the people decided not to go to the Conservatives and not to go back to the Liberals, who had made a tremendous dent in the credit of the Province and had had many scandals with the railways, and so on. They went to a brand new Party headed by a lawyer, the late John E. Brownlee, and the Party was known as the United Farmers of Alberta. It was in power until 1935 and it did a lot of good things. It moved the telephone lines so that rural people could have telephones. That is still remembered as one of the big things done by the UFA. It also went to the Canadian Government and begged, pleaded and demanded ownership of our natural resources the same as other provinces. Finally, in 1930 the federal Government gave the province ownership of its natural resources so that we were on a par with the other provinces in Canada. That one item stands out conspicuously in the UFA administration. But what if there had been an intelligence service when that Party was first started and we had said to them, "No, we cannot have this, you are talking a new language"? They were talking a new language, Mr. Speaker. They were going to do things that the old line Parties were not prepared to do at that time. Had
February 13, 1984

they been stopped it would have been a pretty serious thing because they were just as loyal as any of us.
Then there was the Social Credit Government which was formed. That Party was led by the late William Aberhart, a powerful man, and to hear him speak about the banks you would never think he had been a Conservative. He talked about the power of the banks. He saw that the people were hungry but that goods were available, so he thought, why not get the money to distribute the goods to the people so that they would no longer be hungry in the midst of plenty? He had a new theory, but had the intelligence service been in existence it would have thought he was going to turn the country upside down. It would have been a sad thing if his group had not held power, because for the next 35 or 36 years they gave good government and good leadership to Alberta. I think of people like Premier Manning and Premier Aberhart who were strong men, loyal to Canada and who wanted all the people to have a share in the great wealth of the country.
More recently there was the separatist movement in western Canada. Most if not all of those people were loyal Canadians but they had a different idea. They thought that with the heavy populations of Quebec and Ontario, it will never be possible for the Maritimes or the West to get a fair deal. I argued the other way. I say that the salvation of the country can rest in the reform of the Senate where we can have a check and balance on what goes on when an arrogant government is in power. Had we had a check and balance when the National Energy Program was introduced, it would never have gone through, and it would not have ruined the industry in western Canada. Had we had a check and balance when the Crow Bill went through, we would not have had the present tremendous weight on the grain producers of western Canada, giving them a load that they cannot carry with incomes going down and expenses going up.
If we had reform, it would be the salvation of the country. Every region must be treated fairly. However, I would not want the intelligence service to be dealing with a group because its idea of the way to run the country is different from the orthodox view. That is one of the dangers I see in any intelligence service.
We want the intelligence service to do a tremendous job in seeking out fifth columnists, those who are out to destroy the country, who would sell us to another power so that they could gain everything they wanted from the wealth of this great land. That is the fifth column I am dealing with, not Canadians who want to better the country and who have a different idea of how to do it.
Whether we have the RCMP or an intelligence service, Mr. Speaker, there has to be accountability. I do not think we can give free rein to any intelligence service to do what it likes and not be responsible to anyone. That simply would not work. With its quasi military setup, the RCMP has responsibility, right from the Commissioner down. Each detachment has a leader to take the responsibility if a constable, a corporal or an
Security Intelligence Service
officer gets out of line. That is one of the reasons why people in the West strongly favour the intelligence service continuing to rest with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. They know that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a disciplined group and is accountable. Those in charge at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should be accountable to the Government of Canada. In turn, the Government of Canada should take responsibility when it gives orders to the RCMP to do things that perhaps it would rather not do. There is no doubt in my mind that orders were given to the RCMP with respect to the fracas in Quebec. Not for one minute could I believe that the RCMP would burn down barns, steal records or break down doors of their own volition. I have too much respect for them to think that. But they do obey orders. If they get an order to do something, they will do it. That is part of their discipline, part of their training, part of their life. It is the same with a soldier, an airman or a sailor in wartime. You cannot have democracy in wartime. You cannot have democracy in the army. You have to be able to take orders and let somebody make the decision. Sometimes the rank and file think the decision is all haywire. Many times in the air force I thought the commanding officer was haywire, but eventually it turned out he knew what he was doing.
I remember taking all the shots preparatory to going to the Far East with the air force. The whole squadron was anxious to go, but suddenly we got word to come back to Canada. I thought the Canadian Government had gone wacky, getting us all prepared then sending us back to Canada. Much as we were glad to come back to Canada, we had volunteered for the Far East. A few days later we found that the bomb had landed and we realized that the Canadian Government knew what it was doing in ordering the troops back to Canada, because the war was practically over.
There must be someone accountable, someone to make the decisions, and we have that in the RCMP. It is one of its strong points. The point I raised with my colleague this morning is the possibility of infiltration by fifth columnists. That is difficult in the RCMP. You do not start at the top in that service, you start at the bottom and work up. If someone has subversive trends, surely that would be found out in five, 10, 15 or 20 years. Such people would not last in the RCMP, and that is one of its strong points. The fifth columnist would have a difficult job to get into the RCMP and influence its intelligence service.
We found that fifth columnists were able to get into the intelligence service in Great Britain and in the United States. They were very clever about it. Perhaps it is possible in the RCMP, but I doubt it. Certainly it would be possible in a separate service, because that has proved to be the case in the U.S.A. and in Great Britain. It is one of the advantages of the RCMP and one of the disadvantages of a separate service.
On the other hand, a separate service could attract highly trained, intelligent people skilled in this particular field. The RCMP are trained as well. I spoke to an officer in Alberta whom I had known when he was just a boy. He had been with the security service and had left it to return to the work of the
1334

February 13, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
detachment because he felt so much consideration was being given to separating the security service that he wanted to be sure he remained an RCMP officer. It had been his life's ambition to be in the RCMP, but he left the security service, although he said that the training he had received in the intelligence service was standing him in good stead.
Many people think that the training in separate universities and in other fields is going to be advantageous in the separate service. Perhaps it will, but time will tell. If we go that route we had better be sure that we take special steps to see to it that fifth columnists, particularly from other countries, do not infiltrate our intelligence service.
What I want to emphasize is accountability. I believe the Government has to be responsible. Whoever the director is, he surely must be responsible to a Minister, and the Minister must be responsible to the House of Commons, and in turn the Members of the House of Commons must be responsible to the people. This is democracy. We should not sidestep democracy in any of our services, whether it be intelligence, revenue or whatever. Democracy will work if there is that line of responsibility from the Minister, who is appointed to the Cabinet and responsible to the House of Commons or to the legislature, and the Members of the House of Commons or the legislature who are responsible to the people. That is the strength of democracy. That should be the paramount objective in developing this service. Are we going to have accountability? We must have accountability and the Minister must take the responsibility. I do not agree at all with former Solicitors General when they say, "I do not take the responsibility for what the RCMP did". The Minister must take the responsibility. I certainly want to emphasize the matter of accountability. When this Bill goes to committee, let us make sure that, whatever route the majority takes with regard to the intelligence service, the director is responsible to the Minister and the Minister is responsible to the House of Commons which, in turn, is responsible to the people. If we go that route, whether it is the RCMP or a separate service, I feel we will have an excellent intelligence service in this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Questions, comments? Debate.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise today and speak on Bill C-9. I do not believe I have seen in the four years I have been here a Bill placed before the House which is more complicated and difficult to understand and one which raises so many questions and which affects so many people all across Canada. On my reading through the Bill, through the Senate committee report and through Bill C-157, a number of questions arose which I feel need to be asked. When this Bill goes to committee, I hope that my colleagues will address those questions in a very reasonable way.
We in Canada live in and support the system in which we have the kind of Government we have, with all its imperfections. We feel free to talk about Senate reform and about changing the rules in the House of Commons. Indeed, we prize, I believe above all else, the freedom which individuals have, not only to move freely within the country but to go home and close our doors at night, and, understanding our laws, feel free to discuss Government in any way we wish. One is free to form a Party which is opposed to the present Government, opposed to the way we are doing things. I have always had a sense of pride that we in Canada allow a Communist Party openly to exist in the country. We allow it to espouse all sorts of things about Canada which it has done freely during elections when people can even run on a Communist ticket. That does not happen in all other countries, but our system is such that we allow this freedom because we know the system we have will not be undermined when things are brought out into the open.
I would like to speak about some of the questions I have about this Bill which, hopefully, the committee will address when the Bill goes for a clause by clause study. I refer first to Bill C-157, Clause 14(2). It states, and I quote:
The Service is not restricted from "remaining informed" about the political, economic and social environment within Canada.
The Senate recommendation is not followed in this instance, and it raises the question as to why it was not. The Senate committee report stated, and I quote:
There is nothing to prevent the service from "remaining informed", indeed this is a necessity. To include this section is to "court mischief' as the words are unnecessary.
The Senate says that to include this section is to court mischief. We have seen this type of mischief when we have looked to our neighbour to the south. We have seen the things which happened at Watergate. We have seen the mischief which happened in political campaigns. We have seen mischief in other areas. The Senate committee report is clearly saying to the House of Commons, "If you include the words in there, it could court mischief'. If the Senate committee believes that those words in the Bill are unnecessary, why are they still in the Bill?
In Clause 2, "threats to the security of Canada" are defined
as:
-espionage or sabotage against Canada or "any state allied or associated with Canada" or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage.
The Senate committee recommendation, which was not followed, stated that the words "espionage" and "sabotage" are not defined in the Bill. What constitutes espionage? What constitutes sabotage? Do we leave this definition with the Minister of the day? Do we leave this definition to the security service itself? I suggest that the security service, by nature of its business, can see "sabotage" and "espionage" in a variety of areas and in a variety of ways, unless we have a clear definition of what those terms mean. One could water the term down to mean an activity on the stock market which could sabotage the economy. It could mean someone attempting to deal in securities or in Canadian currency in such a way that he moves the price up or down. I believe some lawyers could
February 13, 1984

very easily interpret those words to mean that espionage is heavy speculation in Canadian currency. I believe these words must be clearly defined. We are leaving too much out that I as a layman do not understand and, I am sure, that many people within the law societies and members of the Bar do not understand either. The terms should be defined so that we all know exactly what they mean. Sabotage is already an offence under the Criminal Code and it is defined. My question is, what does the word espionage really mean? The dictionary definition is that it is spying and section 3 of the Official Secrets Act defines it very broadly. I think espionage should be defined in the Bill and I would ask my colleagues to address this problem when it goes to committee.
Clause 2(c) of the previous Bill C-157 referred to activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state. The provincial attorneys general voiced their concern about this definition being far too broad. I agree with them. I do not know all that the Senate was referring to. There were several witnesses who appeared before the Senate committee who urged that a change be considered and that the definition be set up in such a way as to deal only with the threat or use of acts of serious violence. We see people across Canada demonstrating against the Cruise missile testing, for example. In their protest marches they may break through a first line of defence which the Armed Forces have put up around an air base or even around the House of Commons. We see fences put up when people are demonstrating. It seems to me that it is not serious violence if they break through the barriers, and indeed even come into the outer lobby of the House of Commons to voice their opinion. I do not think that would be viewed by any Member in the House as serious violence. It seems to me that we are putting a provision in this Act which could view that action as being against the Act. I think it would be a serious restraint on the freedom of individuals to express themselves in the way in which they have become accustomed. I am not speaking about a saboteur or undercover agent using serious violence by setting into motion a situation where explosives are used to derail a train or something like that. To me that is serious. There are other activities that do not meet this criterion. I ask that my colleagues consider that very carefully in the legislation.
Section 18 deals with international affairs and defence. This allows the service, in relation to Canada's defence or its conduct of international affairs, to assist in Canada with the collection of information or intelligence respecting a foreign state or foreign person. I am not sure whether the service should be engaged in this type of work, as it is not linked to the security of Canada. I think the way it is presently laid out is too broad and should be narrowed down and linked to the security of Canada. The conduct of international affairs, not linked with the security of the nation, should not be included here. That area has to be studied.
Security Intelligence Service
Where are the parameters of this provision? Testimony before the Senate committee specified that this section will be used to gather economic, commercial and social data about other nations. I can understand the need for economic and commercial data and indeed for social data of other nations, particularly nations with which we have entered into foreign aid agreements. We in Canada would be miffed if we found out that the security services of other nations were gathering information in a secretive manner regarding our economy, commerce and society. In most cases in a free society this information is available anyway. I do not understand the necessity for connecting these two together.
Warrants can be issued to allow the service to use intrusive techniques under this section. How does a judge determine whether to issue a warrant? In my mind the security service is there to protect the security of our country, yet we are arming it with the authority to use techniques clearly subversive in another country to gather commercial, economic and other kinds of data which are not related to the security of our country. I can envisage people from the new security agency or senior RCMP officers in the security service posted to our embassies in other countries and being expelled holus bolus because we are arming them with the authority to do subversive work in another country. I am not sure that is what we want to do. Since warrants are issued to enable the service to perform its functions and duties, will a judge always issue a warrant in Canada if the relevant Minister requests the service to act under this provision? He may not. More work has to be done on that section, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to comment on the powers afforded in this Bill. Section 22 gives the service extraordinary powers by warrant. I always worry about extraordinary powers. If a judge is satisfied that the service requires a warrant to perform its duties and functions under the Act, he may issue a warrant which allows the service to intercept any communication or obtain any information, record, document or thing. That is very broad indeed and clearly can be abused. After a great deal of study, the Senate committee suggested that a balance was called for between the gravity of the threat to security and the intrusion into the privacy of those affected by the warrant.


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

February 13, 1984
Interest Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   INTEREST ACT AMENDMENT RESPECTING MORTGAGE PAY-OUTS
Paul Wyatt Dick: that Bill C-212, an Act to amend the Interest Act, be read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once again it is my pleasure to rise and debate this very small Bill which I have introduced. This Bill was debated in the House on March 2, 1983, but it is still very much apropos that it should be debated again at this time.
I hope to draw the attention of the House and Canadians to the plight of hundreds of thousands among us who are trapped into paying excessively high interest rates on their mortgages. I am referring to the dilemma facing Canadian families who are forced to pay 17 per cent, 18 per cent or 21 per cent interest on mortgages which today might be refinanced in the range of 12 per cent.
When I introduced this Bill last year I checked with CMHC and found that there were 700,000 Canadians who had mortgages at 17 per cent or higher. I do not know what the updated figures are as the statistics taken in the 1981 census have not been compiled as yet, according to Statistics Canada. Surely the figure would be approximately 150,000 fewer, but there are still approximately 500,000 Canadians who are faced with these high interest rates.
Bill C-212 suggests a means by which these home-owners might take advantage of today's lower interest rates. Quite simply, it would provide them with a means of paying off their present mortgage with a three-month penalty, thereby allowing them to apply for a new mortgage at a lower rate.
This bill is intended to try to bring the Interest Act of today up to date in harmony with the present practices. Let me briefly explain what the present practice is. Since as far back as 1907, the Interest Act has contained the same Section 10. It may even go back to when the first Interest Act was introduced in what was then Upper Canada of 1859, but it has been around for as long as Canada has existed. That section provides that if a person has a mortgage for a term longer than five years, at the end of five years it could be paid off with a three-month penalty. Of course, it has been the norm in this country for a number of decades to have 25 year mortgages. This means that in one fifth of the term of a 25 year mortgage, people could decide to pay their mortgage off by paying a three-month penalty. That seemed to be fair and worked in this country for at least 60 years, until 1967 and 1968 when the mortgage lending institutions, the trust companies and banks, unilaterally changed that equilibrium that had survived over decades and reduced it to a 10-year mortgage. That is
when inflation began to get out of hand. It was approximately 4 per cent then.
I want to suggest that these institutions have gone further. When interest rates began to get way out of line for the first time in our history, from 1979 to 1983, they further reduced that term to a maximum mortgage of five years, then three years and finally one year. At one point, one could only get a six-month mortgage. In the last year some companies have lengthened the term again to five years. However, as Hudac's John Sandusky stated in an article in the Financial Times of December 5, 1983, "Having access to long term money remains a higher priority for the housebuilders". It is not only a priority for the house builders but it is that also for the house lenders and the people who are borrowing money to buy the houses. The lending institutions changed that 60-year equation of a 25 year mortgage in which it could be paid off after five years. They unilaterally changed it to suit themvelves.
I am suggesting now that we should put this back into a fair equation so that if five years was one fifth of a 25 year mortgage, then after one fifth of the term of any mortgage the mortgagor would be able to pay off the mortgage with a three-month penalty. That is the essence of this Bill. It does not matter whether this Bill is passed or whether Members would sooner discharge it and have the subject matter sent to committee; I want it explored.
I know what the lending institutions will say. They will say that they have borrowed money at 16 per cent and lent it out at 18 per cent and five year GICs and so on. I want to say that if the Government wants to listen to the big lending institutions, with all of their profits and big bucks, and not listen to the little guy, then let it go ahead. But the Government is just giving in to the big banks. I believe it should listen to the little person in this country.
In that respect let me make a few comments about the banks. On October 18, research showed that the spread in the bank rate, between the inflation rate and the bank rate, was the highest it was in 10 years except for once in December, 1980. With respect to the real interest rate, the spread between the chartered rate and the bank rate was the highest in any year and any month in the last 10 years except for the month of December, 1980.
Last fall, the chartered bank prime spread was running at approximately 5.5 per cent to 6 per cent. In 1972 it was running at .90 per cent. In December, 1973, it was .20 per cent. In December, 1976, it was 3.75 per cent. In January, 1983, it was 3.70 per cent. The banks are not hurting right now. But let them come to the committee and give us their tale of woe. I would like to ask them a few questions.
I have here a few examples, of which there are many. The trust companies keep pleading that they are hurting so much. In a Globe and Mail article on December 8, 1983, it states that for the previous year, Financial Trust Company earned 56 cents but for the last nine months up to December, 1983, it has earned 98 cents a share. Victoria and Grey had gone from $1.15 a share in 1982 to $1.79 a share in the same period of time. They are not necessarily hurting either. Let us not listen
February 13, 1984

to their story of woe without giving them a chance to explain all the details.
In a periodic news release of March, 1983, from Gardiner and Watson, a reputable brokerage firm in Canada, they talk about the net interest margins: mortgages versus GICs. In that article they state that as a rule of thumb the spread between mortgages and GICs has been roughly 1.50 per cent so that against current rates, trust companies will improve their spreads by 25 to 125 basis points, depending on the term the new business assumed. They are saying that they are making more money. They had a bigger spread in 1983, when this was written, than they had in previous years. What they are saying is that they are making more money. They have a bigger spread now in 1983 when this was written than they have had in previous years.
I do not want to speak for a very long time but I want to point out a couple of things which should be pertinent to the Government. For example, on June 24, 1974 at 5.45 p.m. EDT, the time for release, we had the following main points: Prime Minister's statement on consumer affairs, which reads in part:
The Liberals will make it a legal right to prepay residential mortgages during the first five years of the mortgage agreement, if the person wishes to do so, without excessive penalties. The law in general permits prepayment after five years-
That was a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and embellished a little bit in one of the news reports. I do not have the exact words of what he said. I just have the text released from his office that he was going to reduce the right to prepay with a three-month penalty. That is what was promised by the Liberals in 1974. Why have the Liberals not lived up to the promise? I say to the Liberals, "Do not listen to the banks and the trust companies. Bring in a Bill. Let us have the subject examined at length, especially in light of the record high interest rates and the penalties that some of the financial institutions want of $6,000, $7,000, $8,000, $9,000 and $12,000. What is the matter? Bring it in and let us take a look from the consumers' point of view.
I want to bring up a matter which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) mentioned on March 28, 1983 in the House of Commons in reply to a question. In 1983 after this Bill had been introduced, the Minister said:
Indeed, Madam Speaker, the point raised by the Hon. Member seems very worthwhile to me, and a three-month penalty would seem reasonable to me under the circumstances. In addition, I would suggest that, if there are other cases such as those mentioned by the Hon. Member, they should be brought to my attention, and I undertake to have them submitted to the institutions involved, either by the Inspector General of Banks or any other appropriate agency, so that they will be closely scrutinized, in an effort to prevent financial institutions from being unfair to some citizens.
The Minister of Finance was on the side of the Prime Minister. Then, of course, on October 11, 1983 the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) spoke to reporters. The CP report read:
The act already gives buyers that option-but only after a mortgage has been in force at least five years. Both NDP and Progressive Conservative MPs have
Interest Act
been pressing the Liberals for months to make the law less restrictive. The Government's main response so far has been to use moral suasion on banks and trust companies.
It has failed. The CP story continued with, "but certainly we feel we must take some kind of action, Erola said Tuesday". Home buyers by the thousands took out or renewed mortgages when rates were 18 per cent or higher. "In fact, in many cases prepayment penalties as high as ten months have been brought to my attention, Erola said". I can bring them to her attention for three years. The Minister refused to say when the Government will decide for sure whether to bring in a Bill on behalf of home owners. This is a Bill on behalf of home owners, not on behalf of the banks and trust companies. However, the banks did say that any changes in the law would not be retroactive. That is fine. At least bring in changes to make things a little fairer and balance out that equation which for 60 years was there until it was upset by the lending institutions.
There were a number of other discussions, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs talked very positively and said that the Bill would be out very soon. But it never happened. We are still waiting and we are hoping that it is not too late. It is very timely that this discussion is going on before the Budget which will be delivered on Wednesday afternoon. Perhpas there could be last minute changes yet. We hope so.


Mrs. Erola:: You betcha.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I noticed the Minister said "you betcha". I am hopeful. There has to be something to help consumers to balance that equation. That has to be done.
I noticed that on October 13, 1983 even the Hon. Member for Oshawa, the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), finally got in on the act about discussing interest rates on mortgages.
On investigation in the United States we find it is very normal for people to get away with a three-month penalty. In one large pool of funds which is quasi government controlled with $149 billion in the pot people in 29 States can get away with paying off at any time what is a 30-year mortgage to start with at one year, three years, five years, by paying a three-month penalty. In other States, there is no penalty at all. The thrust of paying off a mortgage with a three-month penalty is the same as that which people have in the United Kingdom. It people in the U.K. and people in the U.S. can do that, why can we not do it in Canada?
I have spoken about Victoria and Grey, the trust company. I hope no one will say, "The poor trust company is not doing that well." Now I read in the papers that the Victoria and Grey is going to start a bank of its own. I worry about the Royal Trust. It has had the Royal Trust Bank in Florida for a number of years, which it is trying to sell off. It is not sold as yet, I understand. But through that facility the Royal Trust has been able to lend money under the terms necessary in the U.S.
If it is good enough in the United States, and all Canadians believe that we should be doing what is done in the U.S.,

February 13, 1984
Interest Act
where a person can get out of a 30-year mortgage in 39 States with a three month penalty and with no penalty in the others, why not here?
This matter should go to committee at least. We should have an inquiry. I would be quite happy to have this Bill discharged and have the subject matter referred to a committee, if anyone wants to suggest it. I think we should have the courage to stand up for the consumers, the people, and not the financial institutions. I am not saying financial institutions do not have a right to come and explain their position. Maybe they will persuade me and the rest of us differently. But let them come and explain in an open committee, not just in the back rooms of the Minister of Finance's suite. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will have a chance to expound on this in a few moments. 1 say, let us give the people a break. There are at least 500,000 who are trapped. Let us follow what the Minister of Finance asked in 1981 when he asked for the financial institutions to bleed a little. They have all had increased profits. They have never bled. There were more foreclosures in 1983 than in 1982. There will probably be more in 1984 than in 1983. People lasted for a period of time, but with the length of the recession they have run out of all their reserves and they will still lose their homes. I hope the Government will allow the subject matter, if not the Bill, to go to committee.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I must say it is a pleasure to be able to say a few words regarding Bill C-212, introduced by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick). I believe he is on the right track in suggesting that perhaps we ought to amend the Interest Act and get on with doing something for the people of Canada as opposed to the financial institutions. I do not want to suggest for a moment that we ought to go out and bad mouth the banks, the trust and loan companies, the credit unions or the caisses. The banks of Canada have existed in an atmosphere or environment of privilege for many years. When we look at the return on equity of the major banks of Canada, year after year we notice that it averages in excess of 16 per cent. 1 do not believe there is another sector of our economy or another business in the country which would say that over the last number of decades its return on equity has been in the 16 per cent range on average. In plain English this means that the banks are doing better than virtually any other sector of the economy. One could make a case for a couple of areas where there have been some improvements or perhaps challenges to the banks. I am referring to those areas in which the Government regulates the prices, such as utilities, pipelines and the like. However, by and large I do not think there is a single Canadian, if he or she were to be honest, who would not say that the Canadian banking establishment operates in a privileged environment.
This Bill is asking why we should not have in Canada the same situation which exists in other lands where people, through their governments, have indicated, particularly during
these difficult times, that they want to pay off their mortgages-and I suspect this is something every Canadian family would like to do if it were able-and are not penalized for making this very prudent decision. At the moment countless examples have been brought to the attention of Members of Parliament of people interested in paying off their home mortgages but because of the incredible penalties assessed these individuals, they found that it was not in their interests to do it or that they could not do it.
I remember very distinctly a few months ago when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) rose in his place day after day and told the people of Canada that they need not fear these penalties. He felt that a three-month penalty clause was adequate. He wanted to know about anyone who was charging more. He wanted the evidence on his desk because he was going to take action and bring it to the attention of the appropriate financial institution or of the Inspector General of Banks. I suspect that gave a signal to Canadians that the Minister meant that in his position of responsibility and authority he would do something about anything over a three-month penalty. 1 suspect I personally received 200 or 300 letters from people in my constituency who were caught in that situation. They indicated that they had heard the Minister of Finance on national television or had read in the newspaper and that they took him at his word. They wrote, "Here is my mortgage, here is what I am prepared to do, and here is what the mortgage company said it was not prepared to accept". He asked them to bring it to his attention, so they did that, only to find that in every instance nothing was done. In other words, the Minsiter of Finance inadvertently mislead many people when he suggested that a three-month penalty clause was appropriate.
Essentially, Bill C-12 takes the Minister at his word. It says to the Minister of Finance and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), "You have said this is appropriate, so let us refer it to the Finance Committee for some discussion".


John Leslie Evans: We did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Let us take it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and let us examine specifically why no changes have been made.


John Leslie Evans: It was in the Finance Committee from 1976 to 1978.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member opposite, who used to chair the Finance Committee, says that this has been discussed. It might have been discussed years ago, but the problem is now. Now is when we are in the depths of a recession; in some parts of the country we are in the depths of a depression. Now is when people need some relief.
Just a few months ago the Prime Minister said that the banks should be bleeding along with everyone else. There is no blood on the steps of the banking institutions of this country. The mortgage holders of Canada want a fair deal such as they would receive if they were residents of other countries. The Minister of Finance has promised them that.
February 13, 1984

We ask the Government to give us the opportunity to discuss this issue in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We are not asking it to make any commitments today, but certainly it is a topic which touches the lives of thousands of Canadians. Also we ask for representatives of the financial institutions to appear before the committee and make their case and for various consumer groups to appear before it and make their case. Then we can let the committee decide. 1 have faith that Hon. Members on the Finance Committee will weight the evidence carefully and, based upon that evidence, will make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance or not, depending on the case which could be made.
We are not asking for the Government to take a definitive position today. We are not asking for a final answer or a final decision. We are simply asking for a reference or a referral to the obvious committee so that we can deal effectively with an amendment to the Income Tax Act. I suspect that the importance of this particular Bill would ensure that it received a quick hearing and that it will be dealt with expeditiously by Hon. Members. I do not see any reason that we ought to be hesitant in referring this, rather than talking about and letting another good suggestion die in Parliament before it is referred and receives adequate consideration and study.


Mr. David Berger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when preparing for the debate this afternoon, I fully intended to congratulate the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) on raising this issue in the House. However, after listening to the Hon. Member, I am afraid I had to change my mind, because what he said was really not on target, and not once but several times.
First of all, he would have us believe that only he and his Party are concerned about the problems of home owners. That is just not true, and I may refer the Hon. Member to a passage in the last Throne Speech where the Government announced it would be proposing legislation to further strengthen confidence in the housing market by giving greater protection to home owners and by broadening the choice of mortgage instruments. These measures should increase the accessibility and security of home ownership, provide a greater measure of confidence and stability to the homebuilding industry, and enhance the flexibility of the mortgage market.

Second, the simplistic solution of the Hon. Member is clearly not the answer. He has not really put forward any changes or any new ideas since the last time his Bill was debated in the House in the previous session of this Parliament. Indeed, many know that the current three-month penalty on a five-year mortgage is said to have caused disappearance of the long-term mortgage, that is those over five years. He had nothing to say about that particular problem.
As the Hon. Member should know, financial institutions operate on the basis of the difference between lending rates
Interest Act
and savings rates. By introducing uncertainty on the lending side, everyone knows that the same would be done on the savings side. This could have negative consequences for depositors-consumers, widows and pensioners.

Third, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member grossly oversimplified an issue that is very complex. He referred to a statement made by the Prime Minister in 1974, namely, that the Government intended to propose amendments or legislation that would enable mortgage holders to prepay their mortgages. The Hon. Member has been sitting in the House for ten years, and I wonder where he really was all this time. Was he wide awake when the subject was being debated in the House and in the Committees of the House? If he was, he should be aware that a Bill was tabled at the time by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Indeed the Borrowers' and Depositors' Protection Act, which was introduced on October 27, 1976, in response to the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), would have allowed a borrower to prepay the full amount of a mortgage loan after three years upon paying a penalty of three months' interest. These proposals received much criticism, probably from the Hon. Member and his Party-


Paul Wyatt Dick: Probably or factually?


David Berger: I was not here in 1976. The Hon. Member was, so I will let him answer the question. These proposals received much criticism on the grounds that they would result in all borrowers paying higher interest rates to compensate lenders for losses incurred due to prepayment when rates decline. This is the problem I referred to in my earlier comments. They would make matching of funds more difficult. They would have reduced the volume of mortgage funds available and would have reduced the variety of mortgage vehicles available to borrowers.
With the demise of this piece of legislation and the end of attempts to implement comprehensive consumer credit legislation at the federal level, the thrust turned to join federal-provincial co-operation for reform. It was hoped to achieve uniform and adequate credit regulations through a series of changes to existing federal and provincial statutes, including at the federal level the Interest Act and the Bank Act.
The federal-provincial task force on consumer credit, which was created in 1977, was instructed to develop suitable reform measures. After lengthy discussions, the task force was able, in 1980, to agree upon a mortgage prepayment formula which would have allowed prepayment in full at any time and would have limited prepayment penalties to three months' interest. However, this scheme, when put to federal and provincial Ministers of Consumer Affairs at the conference of October, 1980 was not unanimously accepted, and the task force was instructed to examine the matter of mortgage prepayment

February 13, 1984
Interest Act
further. I wonder if the Elon. Member has ever taken the trouble to refer to the deliberations of this task force and to the difficulties that have been encountered in coming up with answers to this problem.
The task force was unable to agree on any scheme for regulating mortgage prepayment at subsequent meetings. However, the task force did agree that full disclosure of the terms and conditions of mortgage contracts, including prepayment rights or the lack thereof, should be made to borrowers before they entered agreements. I would like the Hon. Member to know that this proposal has been adopted in the new regulations on cost of borrowing disclosure under the Bank Act, which was put forward by this Government in the last session of Parliament. It contains prescribed forms providing for the disclosure of prepayment terms and conditions. I regret to say that comparable provincial legislation, applicable to all provincially-regulated lenders, has not been forthcoming.
1 would be remiss if I did not mention the assistance provided by this Government under the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan. As we all know, during the period of high interest rates the federal Government and some provincial governments provided assistance to many individuals faced with mortgage renewal. Some provinces subsidized renewed mortgages so that borrowers in difficulty paid effective rates of 12 per cent. The federal Government created the Canada Mortgage Renewal Plan, but we did not hear any reference to this in the Hon. Member's comments.
This is a complex question. It not only relates to the matter of prepayment of mortgages, but to the question of full disclosure of information at the time the loans are made. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) conducted a study in the past year of these alleged misrepresentations relating to mortgage negotiations. As we all know, allegations were made about representations by mortgage lenders regarding prepayment penalties. When we had the high interest rates in 1982, certain persons alleged that they were induced to take out a five-year mortgage rather than one of a shorter term. They were allegedly told that they could renegotiate at a lower rate should interest rates decline, provided that a three-month penalty was paid. A study has been conducted by the Marketing Practices Branch of the Bureau of Competition Policy, and the Minister, who has had the benefit of this study, will be making proposals for legislative changes dealing with all aspects of this problem.
In conclusion I refer again to the commitment that was made by this Government in the Speech from the Throne. I assure the Hon. Member and all Canadians that the Government will be bringing forward comprehensive proposals within a short period of time.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter that has been raised by the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carle-ton (Mr. Dick). Before beginning my remarks, I want to thank the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Berger). He has done his usual outstanding job in his presentation. I am happy to tell the House
that he has done such a good job that there is an unusual precedent here. The people in my riding are starting a draft to nominate him in my riding so that he will come and run in Mississauga. He is such a great guy that they want him to run there. I understand he would be happy if I would run in his riding, but we will let him come to Mississauga first.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to be relevant to the Bill now under study.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I needed that reminder. If I had not had a little check from you, I would have gone on for hours on the fine qualities of the Hon. Member. I would not want to do that.
The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton offers a surprising sense of populism in his Bill. In fact, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) must have felt tempted to invite the Hon. Member to join the NDP caucus. It was terrific rhetoric. I am glad there is at least one Progressive Conservative who is prepared to stand up in the House and defend the rights of ordinary people. Many others have been prepared to defend the rights of the boardroom and the fat cats, but this individual is obviously prepared to show some conscience. The Hon. Member has done well on that.
This is the second time he has raised this issue. In each case we have seen the strong sense of populism. I suspect, and I am sure other Hon. Members do, that this will lead to his getting kicked out of this Party. I do not know why they would listen to somebody who wants to represent the ordinary man. I warn him that the Tory Party has been throwing out some members and has been stabbing them in the back. That happened in my city with the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blen-karn). He was almost attacked on his nomination. I hope a good, populist, sensitive, conscientious Hon. Member like this one has his nomination all ready, because his Party will come after him for presenting an issue of this sensitivity, particularly one with such a common-sense basis.
In his Bill the Hon. Member has not addressed some important economic facts, which I just want to remind him of. I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Evans) will recount in a few minutes some of the history of the efforts made by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs along this line, but I just want to take a look at the mortgage market as it is today because I think there are some really interesting things happening. In my opinion, the short-term mortgage market-and I am going to come back to this-is a really exciting thing for home owners today. We have one year mortgages down around 10 per cent, and that is pretty good for most home owners. In fact, when you contrast it, as the Hon. Member rightly has, with mortgage rates of a couple of years ago, this is a lot of relief from the 20 per cent level people were once experiencing.
Interest rates, Mr. Speaker, clearly reflect the state of the economy. Today's lower interest rates reflect the great health that we are starting to experience once again in our economy.
February 13, 1984

Interest rates are a symptom. They are not the actual cause of much of our economic disorder; they are a symptom of a deeper disorder. Today's low interest rates are a symptom of underlying health. That is what is important for us to recognize. We have an economy on the road to recovery, an economy that once again is feeling strength, and that is reflected in lower interest rates right across the board. All of us would like to see them lower, and as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) has said repeatedly in the House, that is his ambition as well. But we cannot get them lower at the moment because of American interest rates and the influence of that enormous economy south of the border. When their interest rates are as high as they are today, we too must keep ours a little bit higher than we would like. We cannot afford to go too much below the level of their rates or we would have an enormous run on our dollar and we would be once again inviting some weaknesses into our economy. We know, because we are practical people, that our economy cannot get so far out of line with the U.S. While American money markets and interest rates are high, ours must remain at a higher than desirable level as well.
Having said that, I say that 10 per cent is better than 20 per cent and it is good to see it back in the area of 10 per cent again. In fact, I think there are mortgages now which are as good as those offered in 1972. We have to go back all that way before we find some in the same range as they are today. 1 would like to check that but I know we have a kind of health in our economy that we have not seen in a long time. We have the promise of stability in our economy and those things have helped to lower interest rates.
I said at the beginning that I am a person who likes short-term interest rates. I believe that many people last year and two years ago were frightened by the economy and searched for some kind of personal security for their families. They felt that although 18 per cent was not good, it was better than 25 per cent, and they were worried that they were going to be facing 25 per cent mortgages. Consequently, they took five-year mortgages. They thought stability was preferable. They went the long course. They chose the option of predictable interest rates at 18 per cent. That certainly happened in my riding. I have street after street where people have taken out five-year mortgages at very high levels and they look around now at the 10 per cent range and they feel the pain. The Hon. Member's comments on that are very appropriate indeed.
When looking at current rates, Mr. Speaker, some people feel they have been cheated. But we must remember when people draw that comparison, that they signed the papers themselves. In my riding the people who signed those contracts knew what they were doing. They did it for a purpose, a reason. They sought stability. They were frightened by what they saw in the economy and did not want to get into a situation that would be even worse a year down the road. Therefore they gambled and went for five years. I think they knew what they were doing.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You think!
Interest Act


Douglas Glenn Fisher: People from Kamloops-Shuswap contacted their Member of Parliament. Well, people from Mississauga North contacted me and told me over and over again that they knew what they were doing when they got into those mortgages. They did not like it but they knew what they were doing and they did it for predictability and security. They took out five-year mortgages at 18 per cent because they thought it would be better than taking out a one-year mortgage at 18 per cent and then one year later looking at another mortgage for 25 per cent. They were frightened of that. They did not want that kind of situation. That is what clearly came across to me. People in my riding said they had a reason for doing what they did and they knew what they were doing. They know that they deliberately entered into a contract. They did not do this with the wool pulled over their eyes.
Now, the Hon. Member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling), who is another great populist-and I want to tell the NDP that it is getting threatening when there are two populists in the Tory Party-has raised this issue as well, but from a business perspective. He has asked whether there have been cases of fraud, cases of misleading consumers. He asked whether the companies deliberately set out to confuse the situation and mislead the home owner. He raised some specific cases, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is investigating those cases. I think we should be clear that we are talking here about a limited number of cases, a small number, and the Hon. Member for Burlington said that in this very House. That does not excuse what happened. When one person suffers, that is too many, and we all agree with that. So it is worth investigating to see if there has been a case of a bank, a trust company or some other institution misleading a home owner. We have to make sure that has not happened. It is a serious charge, we have to investigate it, and I congratulate the Hon. Member for Burlington for raising that charge. However, we also have to know that the vast majority of people knew what they were doing. They entered into a contract deliberately for a specific reason. They knew what the cost would be per month and they were willing to pay it. At least in my riding the vast majority of people knew of some options that were shorter-term, and they were frightening and so they would not go into it. However, I think we all look forward to the report from the Minister on a very important investigation.
The charge has also been made that sometimes verbal promises were made which were not kept. Sometimes the mortgage holder was given new documents to sign or documents that purposely omitted the mortgage holder's rights. That is not good enough. I think we should clearly give a message to the financial institutions that such a thing is not good enough. The Hon. Member for Burlington said that to the trust companies when they appeared in front of the committee last fall, and I joined him in that discussion. The financial institutions said they were concerned about such a thing. We have heard this from The Toronto Sun; it has raised concerns. I might say that Garth Turner, in The Toronto Sun, likes to kick Liberals around a lot, but I always like reading

February 13, 1984
Interest Act
his column because he gives good advice. I think his politics are wrong but his financial advice is very good. I think he has some interesting things to say about mortgages in particular. He raised the question of trust companies and their behaviour on mortgages. Gradually, as this debate progressed over a period of some months, it became clear to us that we were talking about a limited number of cases. We are not talking about hundreds of thousands of individuals, as the Hon. Member implies. I applaud his conscience but I must question his mathematics. He has the numbers right in terms of mortgages outstanding, but I do not think all those mortgages were fraudulently obtained. We would have to say again that most of those mortgages were given to people who understood exactly what they were getting and were happy to get it.
The Hon. Member for Burlington raised the question, however, and in committee the trust companies answered those concerns and expressed concerns of their own. We also heard from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola).
As I said at the beginning, interest rates are not in themselves signs of problems in our economy but rather are symptoms of problems. Today they are a symptom of health, because they are coming down.
1 should like to quote some of the interest rates that are in place today. As of January 30, a Canada savings bond would yield 9.5 per cent for one year and 7 per cent for six years after that. That is a long way from the 19 per cent we had to pay a couple of years ago in order to be competitive. The Bank of Canada rate was at 9.98 on January 30, the prime rate at the tanks was 11 per cent, one year variable mortgages were 10.25 per cent, and five-year fixed mortgages were 12.50 per cent. Those figures indicate health and strength in the economy and show that the banking system is not trying to clean everybody's clock or to skin the country.
Let us remember the good work done by the Finance Committee when it examined bank profits. If there are problems with the mortgage system, let us address the manageable parts of the problems and not throw out the baby with the bath water. Let us not destroy the whole financial system or mortgage system in order to get to smaller problems.
If we paid attention to the findings of the Finance Committee, we would see that many of the charges made about improper profits are not true at all. There was a minority report from the NDP, and I am sure the Hon. Member for Lanark would be happy to sign it but the other Tories did not sign it. They agreed with the majority and did not find that bank profits were unconscionably high. I think the Hon. Member should know that his Party does not think the banks are ripping off the Canadian people. I do not think the Canadian people want to see a cure for specific problems that would destroy the banks. I do not think the Canadian people want to see the Bank of Nova Scotia sent down the tube because a customer has a problem with his mortgage. That would be too much of a response to a specific problem. We
must bear in mind that any cure we introduce for a problem has to be relatively balanced. We have a delicate system where the banks incur an obligation with a depositor and use the depositor's funds to loan out the mortgage money. Are we going to throw away those mortgages and all those-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) rising on a point of order?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Hon. Member would permit a short question.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: I will if there is any time left at the end of my comments, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member had his 20 minutes and I should like to have mine. I think some of the things he said need to be answered.
We might find that the kind of cure he is seeking could come from a slightly different direction. There is the Canada Mortgage Renewal Program, for example, which addresses the problems that people have in extreme circumstances. When their mortgage payments amount to more than 30 per cent of the gross family income, we help them out with a grant to bring it down to a manageable rate. We have not gone to the banking system and turned it topsy-turvy because of one problem. Instead, we have gone to the home owner who has the real problem and given him help directly. That is a more balanced approach. We have not made a sweeping proposal that would disrupt the normal system. We have given help to the individual home owner, and in my riding that plan has been well received because it has gone to the people who need the help. When the crisis has passed then our help is no longer needed.
I see that the Hon. Member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bocksta-el) wants to enter the debate, Mr. Speaker, and I know he agrees with what I say. We have offered special rate considerations of the same type in a variety of other circumstances. There is the Farm Credit Corporation and there is the Small Business Loan Program which addresses special circumstances and give grants to people when the system cannot accommodate them. That is more balanced than simply throwing everything out. We must follow that kind of approach in many circumstances and realize that we should aim our help where it is needed, and not throw out the whole system.
We do not need a general attack on banks at this point. Instead, we need to investigate and determine the extreme circumstances and find answers for them. The system is a good one for home owners and for the banks and it works well.
I remember the day when mortgage money ran out. Every year you had to get in line to prove you were eligible for money. We fixed that problem, and now the vast majority of Canadians can have secure mortgages in a secure financial system, without things thrown topsy-turvy. When we perceive a problem, as was done by the conscientious Hon. Member, then let us get a specific and directed cure.
February 13, 1984


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


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Hon. Member a very short question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. That can only be done with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Is the Hon. Member aware that Bill C-212 was quite specific? It changed one word in an entire statute-it changed the word "five" to the word "one". It did not cover the whole waterfront, but just one word was changed.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence I would have to ask for some clarification on that. Does the Hon. Member mean to tell me that changing that one word is just a little tinkering? Does he not recognize that changing that one word is a massive change?


Paul Wyatt Dick: It certainly is not as broad as the Hon. Member tried to make out.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I reject that as an irresponsible statement. The Hon. Member would have to admit that it is an enormous change and not the small tinkering that he would have it. Otherwise, why do we hear so much concern expressed by the lender? Maybe the Hon. Member could tell us that.


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are the one who is expressing the concern.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Hon. Members are not in committee at this time.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, all I have time to deal with is the fact that it should be known that this motion was brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on statements in 1974. In 1976, the Government introduced legislation when 1 was part of the Public Service and worked on it with the Minister and provincial Governments to try to come up with a solution. The Tories blocked the legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before reading the adjournment motion, I should inform the House at this time that there has been agreement between the Hon. Members who have the first two items, to switch them around.



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

Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this point to follow up on a question I asked of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) in this House on January 31. It concerns the findings of the McDonald Commission with respect to wrongdoing and illegalities on the part of some members of the RCMP security service. At that time I asked the Solicitor General what action he intended to recommend to the Commissioner of the RCMP in so far as disciplinary action is concerned in order to ensure that the rule of law is upheld in this country.
As background to the question I would like to note that the McDonald Commission, following an extensive series of hearings, found a common thread, if you will, running through the actions of the security service, particularly at the senior level. What was found, and I quote from their report; was:
-a willingness on the part of members of the RCMP to deceive those outside the force who have some sort of constitutional authority or jurisdiction over them or their activities.
I should note, Mr. Speaker, that had responsible Ministers, that is, the Solicitors General of the day, been more vigilant and more diligent in pursuing their responsibilities for oversight of the activities of the security service, then certainly it would not have been able to operate in the policy vacuum in which it so obviously operated. I should note, as well, that in a number of cases it was clearly the situation that members of the security service were urged on, at best, wilfully blind to the legality of its operation, by a Cabinet and by Solicitors General who were anxious that they be a little more effective than perhaps they had proven to be during the October 1970 crisis.
It is important in looking at the question of the rule of law and discipline to examine the kinds of activities which were carried out by some members of the security service, the so-called "disruptive measures" and countering measures. For example, a number of measures involved criminal conduct; burning a barn, attempting to render a vehicle inoperative, filing false income tax returns, theft, threats by phone and kidnapping, as well as a number of other activities which, as the McDonald Commission indicated, while not perhaps unlawful, certainly were highly improper and unacceptable. For example, the issuing of false communiques with the intention that the news media and the FLQ sympathizers would regard it as a legitimate call to arms, actually persuading an employer to fire a person suspected of belonging to a subversive group, spreading false information and attempting to disrupt meetings of radical labour organizations by conspicuous surveillance. As the McDonald Commission noted:
These methods violated the rule of law, inflicted damage on Canadian citizens and involved secret attempts to manipulate political events and the news media.
One would have thought, Mr. Speaker, given a history of very serious wrongdoing and criminal illegalities such as that reported by the McDonald Commission, that the Commissioner of the RCMP would have taken at least some disciplinary action, and most importantly, the Solicitor General, ultimately

February 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
responsible to Parliament for the activities of the RCMP, would have ensured that any disciplinary action which was taken was in fact reported to the public.
In August of last year the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan) stated that the Government did not in fact intend to take any disciplinary action. He said, " ... I recognize it as a responsibility of the Commissioner to proceed in this area", although obviously the Minister cannot wash his hands of his own responsibility. The Minister of Justice said that the Commissioner had decided that it would not be appropriate to institute disciplinary proceedings in any of the instances referred to by the Commission while it remains possible that disciplinary action might result from the findings of Quebec courts.
Subsequent to that statement, it has been suggested by the Solicitor General that, yes, in fact there was disciplinary action but he is not going to tell us when that disciplinary action took place or against whom it took place, or the nature of the disciplinary action. We just have to trust him that somehow in fact this was the case. That is an astonishing statement, surely, for the Solicitor General to make. It is an astonishing statement that we in Parliament, and members of the public, are not entitled to know clearly what disciplinary action, if any, has been taken against those members of the security service who were found to have either broken the law or breached the high standards of ethics which they were obliged to uphold.
I would welcome a clarification from the Solicitor General at this point as to exactly which members of the security service have in fact been disciplined and, if he indicates there has been discipline, what the nature of that discipline was and when that discipline took place. Failing that, Mr. Speaker, surely the rule of law itself is being cast into very serious doubt in this country. How can it be suggested that when discipline does take place it is not in the interest of the Canadian public to know precisely what in fact has been meted out in that regard? This is equally important in terms of other members of the security service who must be put on notice that should similar conduct be repeated in the future we are prepared to take this kind of disciplinary action in these circumstances.
Anything other than a full accounting to the Canadian public in these circumstances amounts to a dereliction of the duty of the Solicitor General in terms of his reporting responsibilities to the people of this country, and also in terms of his responsibility to ultimately oversee the activities of the security service and ensure that it obeys the law and adheres to the high standards which any security service in a democratic societyy must adhere to.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) takes great delight in reminding and re-reminding the Canadian people of what is perhaps the most regrettable chapter in the history of the RCMP. It is certainly the most regrettable in the history of the security service of the RCMP. It is a chapter
which the force, the security service and the Government are working very hard to close and put satisfactorily behind us.
He indicates that disciplinary action would be a proper way of showing respect for the rule of law. I would like to remind Hon. Members that the incidents to which the McDonald Commission referred which dealt with rule of law issues, that is with possible law breaking, were not matters to be looked at by the Commissioner in terms of discipline. They were matters which were to be referred outside of this Ministry and beyond the responsibility of the Commissioner, to federal and provincial attorneys general to make decisions to satisfy the Canadian people with respect to the honouring of the rule of law. I am not the proper Minister and this is not the only Government that should be addressing that question. That is a matter he should address to other Ministers and other Governments if he is not satisfied with the requirements of the rule of law on matters found by the McDonald Commission.
As far as the matter of discipline is concerned, I refer him to the RCMP statute which provides clearly that discipline is a matter within the responsibility and purview of the Commissioner. I informed the House that the Commissioner had addressed that, taken action and reported to me that discipline had been imposed in some cases. If the Commissioner had wanted publicity to be part of the penalty imposed that would have been part of his decision. Our tradition, which I intend to continue to respect, calls for those actions to be within the responsibility in all ways of the Commissioner.


Svend Johannes Robinson: So much for accountability.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I would like to remind the Hon. Member that we have an opportunity to take a real step to do something to provide for greater accountability and responsibility. That is to take the security service as has been recommended now by two royal commissions and the Senate Committee and re-establish it within a proper system of safeguards and controls where there is independent outside scrutiny and review. I am not asking the Hon. Member to trust me, as he incorrectly quoted me as saying. I am asking him to work with me to help develop our national security on a proper basis in a legislated framework with proper control and review which we can be proud of, which the security service will be much better served by having, and which will better serve the national security of our country. We have had two days of debate now. I look forward soon, with his support, to seeing the matter referred to a parliamentary committee.


FISHERIES-FUTURE OF INDEPENDENT FISH COMPANIES IN NOVA SCOTIA
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are well aware of my concerns about the fishery on the East Coast. I rise tonight to reinforce the reason for the question I asked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on February 7, and also to show my disappointment at his response. He said that he would take note of my representations. This sometimes means that that is exactly where it ends.
February 13, 1984

My question related to the fact that the Government had guaranteed to pay the Bank of Nova Scotia approximately $70 million over the next five to ten years, and that not all of the money allocated under Bill C-170 for the restructuring of the East Coast fisheries was spent. 1 estimate that to be approximately $45 million. In light of those facts, I asked the Minister to reconsider the small independents on the East Coast who are suffering.
I was not one of those who supported the restructuring Bill, because I have always believed that while restructuring is necessary, the banks should have put the companies on the East Coast that were in difficulty into bankruptcy, rather than the federal Government guaranteeing the bank its loans for the restructured company debts over the next number of years.
There has been no guarantee for the small independents at the federal level. In Nova Scotia, there has been no guarantee for the small independents. In Newfoundland, at least we saw the provincial Government bring in a $12 million loan guarantee to the small independents that might be suffering in order to adopt the restructuring plan. Large companies were also squeezing those independents.
Those small independents are the backbone of every small community, not only in South West Nova but throughout the maritime provinces. Those companies have not come looking for assistance, as the big companies have done, yet they have been hurting. The banks have been squeezing their financing in order to make it difficult for them.
1 am asking that the $45 million that was not spent but allocated for restructuring on the East Coast now be directed toward loan guarantees to the many small independents across the province. The federal Government and both provinces have not only gone ahead to help refinance the off-shore sector, they have also guaranteed off-shore resources for the next five years for this off-shore operation. They have added to their quotas. They have given them red fish in the gulf and access to more northern cod. At the same time, in areas such as south western Nova Scotia where the industry has been able to sell the fish and keep inventories low, the banks have put the squeeze on because of other financial restraints in the off-shore sector. For instance, instead of increasing the allocation in cod, it has been decreased. This was done without even studying the cod stocks that were there. There was a limit set in 1981 and that limit has been maintained. The Minister has promised to do a study but has not done so. During all this time, we have seen this need in the off-shore fishery. I do not believe that they will not be back for more next year.
What I am specifically asking is that assistance be given to the small independents, the inshore fishery in the Maritime Provinces. The Minister has that money now, the $45 million. He does not have to wait for the new fiscal year on April 1 to act on the call for an additional $100 million guarantee. The Minister could be helping those companies immediately.
The fishing season is starting. Our plants are not working. Their finances are spread out. They are looking both to
Adjournment Debate
provincial Governments and the federal Government for some financial guarantees, similar to what was given in the offshore; perhaps not to the extent of the financial commitment the federal Government has made to the offshore sector. The federal Government and the Provinces have made those commitments, asking for guarantees of resources, paying off their debts, without asking them to slim down their operations. Those companies will have more fish to put into inventories next year than they had last year.
There has been no consideration given to the dependency throughout the East Coast on the small independent processors. Unless something is done many plants will not be able to reopen because they cannot get the financing from the lending institutions which they have dealt with in the past. Perhaps pressure has to be put on the banks. Perhaps the banks have not been asked by the Provinces or the federal Government what they are doing to the small independents. If the future on the East Coast is in the fishery, a natural resource, surely Governments at all levels, have to take into account the plight of the many small independents and the inshore fishermen in areas such as those I represent.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to expand in more detail than was possible by the Minister during Question Period last week in response to a question raised by the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell).
Let me say at the outset that the cause taken up by the Hon. Member for South West Nova, that is the plight, and the future stability of the small independent processors, is in my view most legitimate, and one which the Department of Fisheries and Oceans shares with her. We too are very concerned about the small independent processors on Canada's East Coast and across this country. We note and we congratulate those who have survived with no government assistance over the last two or three years. We found it necessary-not as a desirable act, not as something we want to do because there is a list of 100 things in which we would like to be involved, in order to maintain the social and economic base of eastern Canada-to step in and to restructure those large companies.
Having said that, I would like to reiterate at the outset that the primary purpose of the Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act, Bill C-170, to which the Hon. Member referred, has been to rejuvenate those major offshore companies which have been or are in the process of being restructured. I would remind the Hon. Member, and all Hon. Members, that there are programs within the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which are available to all industries, including small fish processing industries, for such things as modernization, expansion and restructuring. All Members are aware that these programs have been used in the past by small independent processors.
Perhaps I would be wise to say that some $45 million remains in a fund and is available. All we have to do is spend it. I recall, Mr. Speaker, as I know you do, just last week seeing a delegation of 114 fishermen from western Canada,

February 13, 1984
Adjournment Debate
and know that as a result of that visit many questions were asked in this House of the Minister about the problems confronting fishermen on the West Coast. I think we have a responsibility as well to address those concerns.
I can say to this House and to all Members that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) and his colleagues in cabinet are concerned about the problems confronting small independent processors. A number of possible solutions are currently being examined. I do not know whether having Governments take an equity share position, as was the case in the offshore, is the right solution for what is often a small independent family-owned operation. I can tell you that we recognize that these people have survived when larger companies have not. We recognize that they are still in operation because of their resilience and their entrepreneurial spirit. We recognize as well that that kind of success deserves the attention of the people of Canada and deserves the reward when the need is there. The people of Canada cannot-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


NATIONAL REVENUE-DEPARTMENT'S SEIZURE OF TAXPAYERS' ASSETS. (B) TAXPAYERS' COSTS IN APPEALING ASSESSMENTS
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, it has become increasingly obvious that individual Canadians are currently experiencing two systems of justice. First, there is justice for the ordinary citizen and, second, justice for the Government. In fact, what we are witnessing is the enactment of a discriminatory double standard in taxation and the means of collecting the money from prosecutions. This will come as no surprise to anyone who has had the misfortune of opposing government rules and regulations in the courts. The struggle against this monolithic state generally leads to a very lengthy legal battle accompanied by considerable costs. Justice in this case, it is very evident, is far more expensive for the private citizen relying on his or her own finances than it is for the Government whose case is fully supported by taxpayers' dollars.
For instance, an appeal launched against the Government can result in excessive costs with virtually no guarantee of success. A crucial decision must be made by a private citizen to appeal a case, whereas the Government with its vast sources of revenue automatically chooses this course of action. I am personally aware of an individual who to date has spent $5,000 on legal fees and estimates the cost of an appeal to be approximately $18,500.
On February 9, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) referring to myself stated:
Should he have specific cases to bring to my attention, I can give him every assurance that we will look into the particular circumstances-
Well, there is the Ernest Herbst Food Company of Downs-view, Ontario. It was found guilty of selling candy bars with a declared weight by ounces only. I was informed by Mr. Herbst that his legal fees thus far have amounted to approximately $5,000 and that he can expect to spend an additional $18,500
for an appeal. His choice, therefore, is to risk an expensive appeal or resign himself to paying the $4,000 fine.
It is appropriate to compare this example with the case of Mr. Jack Halpert and Mr. Ray Christiansen, two independent gasoline retailers who were found innocent by an Ontario Provincial Court judge. Following this decision, the federal Government had no hesitation whatsoever in launching an immediate appeal, using taxpayers' dollars. Not only did it launch the appeal, but it withheld compliance with the court decision to pay both Mr. Halpert and Mr. Christiansen $42,000 in costs. This means that these two small independent dealers are out their costs until the appeals are finalized.
I maintain that Ernest Herbst Food Company in Downsview should be afforded the same opportunity as the Government in its right to appeal. If the Government can use taxpayers' money in court while it appeals its own lost cases, why cannot a private individual who wins a case which the Government has brought to court be entitled to the same opportunity?
What is happening in the tax Department today is that a man is proven or found to be guilty by tax assessors without any day in court. What is happening in reality-and I think every Member of Parliament knows it-is that the taxman comes along and says that a person is being reassessed $200, $800 or even $1,000 more in tax. Individuals say that the new assessments are wrong. We hear people say that a wrong interpretation of the tax law is being made. The bureaucrats say that if the individual believes that then as a taxpayer he has the right of appeal. Then the taxpayer looks at the cost of appealing which could amount to $5,000 or even $50,000- and in the specific case to which I referred, it would be $18,500-and it is more than the amount of the reassessment.
It is a normal human reaction to say "I know I am right as a taxpayer. I would like to prove that I am right. I would like to prove that the taxman is wrong, but it will cost me so much money that I will be better off simply to accept the judgment of the civil servant, the servant of the people." The Minister responded to me on February 9, by saying there is an option open to that individual. That individual can appoint a third party who will guarantee the amounts of the moneys owed to the Government in tax and then we will go ahead and hear the appeal.
I say with all due respect to the Minister that it is one thing for him to say that that person who has been assessed has the right of appointing a third party. It is an entirely different thing to assume that that individual who has been assessed and taxed on business and then driven out of business because of his inability to pay is able to find such a third party to guarantee all the costs, all the fines and the ensuing costs that go with going into receivership, which is very often the case. Often the efforts of the tax people force independent businessmen right out of business today.
If the Minister was fair with the people of Canada he would recognize the need today for some form of financial assistance so that the Halperts and the Christiansen's of Toronto, who
February 13, 1984

have won the cases brought against them by the Government, would be afforded those dollars awarded to them by the court rather than having to wait for perhaps three appeals. Halpert and Christiansen will now have to go to the Ontario County Court, then to the Ontario Court of Appeal and then to the Supreme Court of Canada. In the meantime, the Government is forcing people out of business by its unwillingness to see the other side, and through its heavy-handed approach in the matter of collecting debts to government, without the same opportunities of recourse being available to the independent businessman or the private individual.


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member regarding question he asked on February 9, 1984 dealing with tax problems, one has to ask if it is a responsible act for a member to stand in this House and make charges filled with loaded words and phrases against the department and the Government in general without citing any proof and in disregard of the facts. Take for instance the words and phrases in his question when he originally raised it. First, he claimed that Revenue Canada considers a person guilty without trial; second, locks up businesses without trial and, third, that the Minister justifies the principle of guilty until proven innocent.
The Hon. Member then went on to talk about seizing the bank accounts of children, senior citizens and the handicapped.
Adjournment Debate
He knows, I am sure, that the seizure of a child's bank account was in fact as a result of a mistaken indentity by a bank, not by the Department of National Revenue.
Who are these seniors and handicapped whose accounts have been seized. Has the Hon. Member identified any cases of injustice and has he taken the trouble to inform the Minister about them? Any seizure of bank accounts or garnishee of salaries takes place after a number of other collection steps have failed and after the taxpayer has failed to avail himself or herself of the standing offer to negotiate suitable terms for payment.
The Hon. Member then referred, as I understand him, to some award of costs against the federal Government and in favour of some independent dealers. It would seem that this is not a tax matter. It is just another example of members having before them a few evasive facts of a case and then drawing conclusions which are often erroneous. I invite all Hon. Members, in situations where they deem that their constituents have been unfairly treated by the Department, to bring the matter to the Minister's attention with all the details-and I stress all the details-pertaining to the case.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House being deemed to have been adopted, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, February 14, 1984