1984-02-10

THE LATE HON. EARL ROWE AND THE LATE SENATOR ALLISTER GROSART

['We will have statements under Standing Order 21 until 11.30 a.m., and then we will have 45 minutes of Question Period.']
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the House has learned with sorrow of the death of the hon. Earl Rowe, who was the former Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, and a former Member of this House. With his death another link is severed with the political generation of George Drew and the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.
Earl Rowe was appointed Lieutenant Governor by Prime Minister Diefenbaker and had served loyally under both Mr. Diefenbaker and the Hon. George Drew. He was a Minister without Portfolio, in fact the youngest one of the Government of R. B. Bennett. Hon. Earl Rowe was a Member of this House for the riding of South Simcoe in 1932, and for Dufferin-Simcoe for 38 years, with a brief interruption when he took over the Ontario leadership.
Our sympathy goes out to his son, Bill, and to his daughter, Jean Casselman Wadds, a former Member of this House. In fact the late Hon. Earl Rowe and Jean Casselman Wadds were the first father-daughter team in the House of Commons. She, of course, is a former High Commissioner to London who is now serving on the Macdonald Royal Commission.
Although it is not usual, Mr. Speaker, I think we should mark as well the passing of Senator Allister Grosart, lover of literature, life, good talk, and good books. He was a student of Shakespeare, and a Firm upholder of parliamentary democracy. He was the Speaker of the Senate in the Government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark. His awareness of the spirit of Parliament and his love of the parliamentary institution were instrumental in gaining the acclaim of members of the other place.
With his departure yet another link with the Diefenbaker era is severed. Canadians will mourn his loss. Parliament has lost a defender. His friends will mourn a loyal, urbane, and distinguished comrade. His widow, Thelma, and family of three daughters, have our heartfelt sympathy in their bereavement.


Hon. Herb Gray (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government and the Members on the Government side of the House, I would like to express our sorrow at the passing of the Hon. Earl Rowe. Mr. Rowe had a very distinguished career in municipal, provincial, and federal politics. He served in this House for some 38 years, that period
interrupted only briefly when he served as Leader of the Ontario Conservative Party. He had a distinguished record of service as well as Lieutenant Governor of Ontario. During his period of service in the House of Commons he was a Minister in the Cabinet of R. B. Bennett.
He had another very important aspect to his life which touched upon my own community of Windsor. He made a marvellous contribution to the harness racing industry. He and his son Bill founded the Windsor Raceway, which is a very important local industry in my own community.
On behalf of the Government and Members on this side of the House generally, I would like to express sincere sympathy to his son Bill, and his daughter Jean Casselman Wadds, a former colleague in the House of Commons, at this time of sorrow. Certainly Earl Rowe will be long remembered as part of the contemporary history of our country.
On behalf of the Government I would also like to associate ourselves with the words of sorrow expressed on the passing of the Honourable Allister Grosart.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to associate the New Democratic Party with the comments made on the passing of both Earl Rowe and Senator Grosart.
I served in the Ontario Legislature during the time Earl Rowe was Speaker of the Legislature. I remember him quite well. He had an infectious sense of humour which enlightened occasions over which he presided. On behalf of our Party we would want to convey our sympathy to the family, Mrs. Wadds and his son Bill.
With regard to Senator Grosart, I recall upon arriving in the House of Commons being summoned to Senator Grosart's office for a discussion about one of his pet projects. He was very interested in the whole question of science and technology, and asked that I join with him on a committee that he was perpetuating, if not forming, to try to encourage dialogue between Members of Parliament and those in the scientific and technical communities. I want to say on behalf of my colleagues, and on my own behalf, how sorry we are to hear of his passing.

February 10, 1984
Tributes



Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the Government was saddened to learn of the death of President Yuri Andropov, of the U.S.S.R.
Mr. Andropov devoted his life to his country. His term as President was short. But in that brief period, he made a significant contribution as a man of vision, a man who worked to improve the conditions of life for his people, a man of modesty and dedication.
The Government of Canada extends its sincere condolences to the Government and people of the Soviet Union, and to the family of the late President.
We also take this opportunity to reaffirm Canada's strong desire to work with the Soviet Union to strengthen the bonds of co-operation and friendship which are essential to the future of mankind. This is a time when leaders of all countries must renew their efforts to meet the challenges of peace. President Andropov understood the importance of that high duty, and we are confident his successors will carry his work further. I can assure the House that Canada will pursue its efforts in this essential task.


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in expressing to the Government of the Soviet Union and to the family our condolences on the sad and particularly untimely passing of President Andropov. I had the opportunity earlier this morning to do so in a personal way.
I join with the Prime Minister in his fitting tribute to a most important figure. Particularly at a time of tension and instability, a loss of this dimension is to be profoundly regretted.
I share as well the Prime Minister's view and hope that his successor who emerges from the leadership of the Soviet Union will continue in genuine efforts to do that which we all must do as best we can, particularly from the leadership of such an influential nation, to commit ourselves to the reduction of tensions and to an honorable formula which will allow for the reduction and, hopefully, the elimination of nuclear arms. We convey to the family and his Government our deep condolences.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues I want to join in the expression of condolence made both by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). I think that at the time Mr. Andropov took over office as head of the Government of the Soviet Union, many in the world hoped that this would signal the beginning of a new era, and that this would, in fact, result ultimately in a lessening of tensions. I also think, in looking back, his prolonged illness would not have allowed for the achieving of the goals which he himself had expressed were the goals he had set, or allowed, for the achieving of the wishes and desires of so many people around the world.
Therefore, on behalf of my colleagues I want to join with both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in expressing our regret at his passing, and I ask that our regrets be conveyed both to his family and to the Government of the Soviet Union.


Mr. Speaker:: At this point in our proceedings, the House would normally proceed to Oral Questions without statements being made under the provisions of Standing Order 21. What is the disposition of the House?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 think you will find that there is disposition to go to statements and the usual Question Period following.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, if that is the desire of the Opposition, we can live with it, but we would have preferred to go right away to Question Period.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I think in the spirit of generosity, surely we would accept that if the Government can live with it and both opposition Parties desire that we go to statements, then we should do so.


Mr. Speaker:: We will have statements under Standing Order 21 until 11.30 a.m., and then we will have 45 minutes of Question Period.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks I have quietly watched the build up of publicity concerning the wolf population in British Columbia. There has been a campaign by some misguided individuals and groups to discredit B.C. Wildlife Officers and supporters in their efforts to control the wolf population in the Province.
The fact of the matter is that in parts of my constituency of Cariboo-Chilcotin and in that of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the wolf population is out of control. People who live in these areas and see firsthand the devastation caused by wolf packs have for some time been warning our provincial Government that effective control measures must be implemented. Provincial Wildlife Conservation Officers are now doing exactly that. It is not a pleasant task, but it is the only alternative to counter the present level of slaughter of valuable wildlife and domestic animals. Certainly predators take the weak and sick, but when wolves reach their present population levels, the kills are indiscriminate, unsustainable, and thus unacceptable.
February 10, 1984

We in B.C. are capable of managing our own affairs and do not need the assistance of the likes of Paul Watson, and paperback entrepreneur "Hardly Knowit". I would respectfully request that outsiders consider the deer, sheep, moose, and caribou. They, too, have a right to live.



INDUSTRY


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as a result of recent changes in beef grading regulations, the Canadian meat industry now separates front quarters from hind quarters by ribbing beef carcasses between the twelfth and thirteenth ribs. This new practice causes real difficulty for orthodox members of the Jewish community. As a result of their dietary laws they may not use any meat associated with the twelfth rib because of the internal lard involved. Consequently, they can use neither part at the moment. A small number of abattoirs specialize in and service 90 per cent of the kosher trade. An exemption to allow ribbing between the eleventh and twelfth ribs of carcasses intended for kosher use would solve the problem.
I recognize that a dual grading system may cause some administrative problems, but sensitivity to community needs should always be more important than administrative simplicity. In addition, there would appear to be significant export opportunities for the resulting front quarters. For either reason, sensitivity or trade, or both, the exemption is justified in my view, and it has been asked for. I believe the Government should move on this matter as quickly as possible.



CANADIAN UNIVERSITY SERVICE OVERSEAS TRIBUTE TO EFFORTS AND ACHIEVEMENTS

Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, the CUSO organization has been in existence in Canada since 1961. During that period of time about 9,000 young Canadians have gone to various countries around the world where they have assisted in the process of development.
Recently a book written by Branca Lapajne has been published criticizing CUSO and its work.
CUSO has worked in left-wing and in right-wing countries. It has had its successes and its failures but, more than anything else, it has built up a great world of experience. It has built up an experience about what is development.
Development is not a movement by entrepreneurs, whether they are individuals or multinational corporations which go into a country to make a fistful of dollars. Development is about people-a freeing of people from the constraints of
poverty, hunger, and disease. Development is also political. When one goes to a country as a volunteer, one can accept the status quo, or one can accept the forces of change, or one can do nothing. All of these are political activities. For a people who have been slaves, oppressed, exploited and humiliated by groups within their own country or by economic, political or military forces from without, development also means liberation.
Liberation means a process by which a people have more control of their own affairs within their historic and cultural context and realities. Any action which prohibits this is not development.
I would simply like to say that I am supporting CUSO and everyone who has worked in it, so that the process of development will continue.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the ceremonies marking the fortieth anniversary of the Normandy invasion are gaining momentum, they must not blot out the courageous but bloody prelude which took place in the Italian campaign when Allied armies directed their attack at the underbelly of Europe, diverting the destroying enemy forces to pave the way for the crucial Normandy invasion.
It must be particularly remembered that one of the most heroic battles was that fought at Monte Cassino in which the Allies, including Canadian and Polish soldiers, made great sacrifices against the massive resistance of Nazi armaments amid the tortuous terrain.
It is a concern to me that the memory of that gallant and historic stand of the Poles on behalf of the Allies at Monte Cassino is fading from the memory of this generation, as Poland has been forced to assume the role of a Warsaw Pact country, a role which has been thrust upon this formerly democratic country by an unfortunate set of circumstances evolving out of decisions made in Yalta during World War II.
It was the privilege of the Polish Army to overcomme the mountainous fortress at Monte Cassino designed by the Nazis to protect Rome. The loss of life was costly, with 1,000 killed. A mountainside memorial stands there engraved: "We Polish soldiers, for our freedom and yours have given our souls to God, our bodies to the soil of Italy, and our hearts to Poland". Their contribution to the cause of freedom, which has been sadly denied them since World War II, must not be forgotten during this anniversary year of the Battle of Monte Cassino.
S.O.	21 FINANCE

February 10, 1984



ALLOCATION OF JOB-CREATION FUNDS IN HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my riding of Hamilton-Wentworth and I, as its Progressive Conservative Member of Parliament, have been fingered on a Liberal list of Tory constituencies which have received federal Government job-creation moneys.
The Liberal strategy to counteract bad publicity about pork-barrelling goes further. Liberals are now attacking anyone on this side who complains about government grants to our ridings, as being against job creation. This attempt to smear Conservative MPs in order to put the lid on the pork-barrel is not only despicable; it is a sign of how corrupt this Liberal administration has become. It is tragicomical when it comes to the case of the expansion of the Hamilton Civic Airport.
Fact-the $45 million to $50 million airport expansion listed for my riding has been a federal government priority for more than a decade.
Fact-the construction start-up, expropriation of lands in the runway path, indeed the whole operation, was approved by all levels of government, and began at least two years ago.
Fact-the strongest proponents of this expansion have included the entire Hamilton City Council, and most of its members live in the three Liberal-held ridings-Hamilton East, Hamilton West, and Lincoln.
I find it almost impossible to believe that a desperate Liberal Government would reach back over the years to associate me with its current pork-barrelling operation. If the $45 million was such a generous grant to a Tory riding, how come I never heard about it until after the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) took all the credit?



THE LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION

Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have heard an awful lot since June of last year about the "changing Face" of the Conservative Party. To my mind, one would be hard pressed to find a more apt description.
We awoke this morning to be confronted, or should I say affronted, with yet another example of two-faced Tory duplicity. It strikes me as somewhat perverse that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) can say in apparent clear conscience so many different things in such a short period of time. How are Canadians to trust a man who on May 9, 1983, said that public servants "never did a day's work in their lives" and, on February 9, 1984, that the Ottawa bureaucracy is "among the finest" in the world?
He himself must get dizzy when he promises on the one hand "to cut everywhere and under every circumstance", and on the other to ensure a "well-paid and well-looked after" public service. If the Leader of the Opposition were promoting a detergent or a breakfast cereal rather than a political philosophy, he would surely be charged with false advertising.
The Leader of the Opposition's self-serving comments at a gathering of Tories in the riding of Ottawa-Carleton last night provide further proof that he is simply the head reptile amongst a party of political chameleons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's language is hardly parliamentary. The Chair has to say that the language in the last sentence is not parliamentary, and would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: Referring to someone as a "head reptile" is hardly parliamentary.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member withdraw that word?


John Leslie Evans: What word, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The word "reptile", referring to an Hon. Member.


John Leslie Evans: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 will withdraw the word "reptile".



OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians can take a great deal of pride in the performance of our Olympic hockey team. Despite much talk of the demise of our national game, the Canadian spirit of dedication, hard work and patriotism, that typifies so many young Canadians, is still there.
Certainly two games are a long way from winning a gold medal, and certainly there are some huge tests ahead, but let us enjoy their performance and wish them well. This was the team that was written off by so many in the world. Let us all learn from their initiative and dedication. They are a group of Canadians from all across Canada, of both official languages, working together and achieving success. Surely the effort and the sacrifice they make should inspire all Canadians, and most of all the Hon. Members of this House, to work together to represent all of Canada better.
I have seen the dedication and sacrifice that take place in the likes of Craig Redmond, a member of the team, whom I
February 10, 1984

saw first-hand as he played in the same hockey association as my son. I also know that this dedication and sacrifice reflect all the youth of today as they strive for success in this rapidly changing world. Our greatest resource is our youth. They typify the Canadian spirit, win, lose, or draw, in the Olympics. They are the future of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):: Mr. Speaker, the Radio Quebec Planete Series on television is a model of multiculturalism programming by public mass media that should be emulated by the CBC. For several years Radio Quebec has been showing ethno-cultural programs in the language of the ethno-cultural group, with French sub-titles, at prime time on Saturday nights. This program is repeated the following week at a different time. I urge the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Collenette) and the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to impress upon the CBC the necessity of following suit, fostering a truly multiculturalism policy and incorporating similar multiculturalism programming for English-speaking Canadians.
French-speaking Canadians, thanks to Radio Quebec, have seen documentaries on the Ukrainian holocaust and the Ukrainian artist, William Kurelek. The English CBC network has failed to produce similar high quality programs. There was no reason, for example, why we could not have had a half-hour program on Chinese-Canadians, in Chinese, during their New Year, or a documentary on Asian-Canadians, with English sub-titles, on prime time CBC. The time has come for the CBC to incorporate a truly multiculturalism policy.



SPORTS POOL


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, soon a sports fan may predict that the Edmonton Oilers will beat the Montreal Canadians 12-0 and, on the basis of his intellect and intuition, win a sum of money in a federal sports pool. Some may cheer the federal Government for putting more sport into sport through a new sports pool corporation, but 1 denounce their money-grabbing ambitions that causes them to break a signed agreement, ignore the law, and tax the poor. In 1979 the federal Government signed an agreement with the provinces that it would stay out of lotteries. The provinces in return paid the federal Government $34 million in 1983. Now the feds claim the sports pool is not a lottery.
The feds are the same people who seasonally adjust the unemployed, fabricate ghost letters about the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) which they cannot substantiate,
Oral Questions
and spend $200 million of public money entrusted to Parliament to save the political life of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). If a sports pool isn't a lottery, then Jello isn't dessert, Alan Fotheringham isn't nasty, and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is a professor of English.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arnold John Malone: The Grits want your money, so Revenue Canada does not have "quotas", it has "objectives", and, upon being discovered, "objectives" become "targets", and when "targets" were discovered they suddenly became "goals", all of which are quotas. We still have quotas; they just do not use their maiden name.
They have an agreement not to enter lotteries so they enter the lotteries but call the lotteries "sports pools". The "jobless" become the "disadvantaged", and blatant Liberal "patronage projects" become "fast-tracking". It's 1984 double-speak. The rhymelesser the timelesser, the worser the free verser.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it concerns the Special Employment Initiatives Program which is, in reality, a $150 million political slush fund under which the Government is handing out grants on a selective basis. We have documents, Sir, which show that this program is manipulated by the Prime Minister's Office, not carried out in the public domain as are other job-creation programs. Would the Prime Minister confirm that indeed his Office oversees this program, that it is his Office which is manipulating it, and that the hallmarks of this whole sleazy operation are secrecy and confidentiality, as these documents show?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: It is interesting to see that the Prime Minister does not even acknowledge what is going on in his own Office.

February 10, 1984
Oral Questions MINISTER'S STATEMENT


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, last November the Minister of Employment and Immigration made this comment about the Special Employment Initiatives Program:
I think there is only really one thing 1 can say to you: When you receive the criteria, if you believe there are some useful projects in your area which would meet the criteria, you send me the suggestions and I will consider them.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration said that on November 29. These documents show that all or most of the $150 million in this program, was committed months earlier. Will the Prime Minister say why the Minister of Employment and Immigration was saying something about a program when his Office, and his political Ministers, had already committed most of the money?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I fail to see the thrust of the question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister was telling members of his own Caucus to use programs which had-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Parliamentary committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is even better-of a parliamentary committee to use programs which have been publicly announced in the Budget, and which are under way. We know that certain members of the Opposition have used these programs. They obviously were not hidden. We know the Hon. Member for Joliette has used these programs. I have seen where the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands suggested that the reason why her Party did not get on with these programs earlier was because during the Summer it was otherwise occupied and did not get around to it.
These programs are public. These programs are available, and Ministers are suggesting to members of a parliamentary committee that they should use the rights of access they have to these programs. What is so shocking?


TIMING OF DECISION ON APPROVED PROJECTS
Flora Isabel MacDonald: What the Prime Minister continues to try to do is to hide the $150 million slush fund which he and his political Ministers are dispensing, and trying to confuse the job-creation programs which are in the public domain with it.
I would like to tell him that this document shows that the Prime Minister's Office circulated lists of projects for review, and that decisions on these projects were made as of last June. The Minister of Employment and Immigration asked Members to provide input after he gave them the criteria in February. How can the Prime Minister describe as anything but corrupt a method whereby he and his political Ministers make decisions on a program in June of one year, and then go through the facade of asking Members of Parliament to provide input some eight months later? What kind of a system is that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry, I have not noted the dates exactly. The Hon. Member is complaining because Ministers and Members are using a program over a period of months some many months later. What is wrong with that as long as there are funds still available? Why do the members of the Opposition not avail themselves of these funds if they are still available? Who will reproach them for availing themselves of funds which are still available? Perhaps their constituents will reproach them for their tardiness, but if the funds are available in order to be spent to create jobs for the jobless, what is the great magic in the calendar dates which the Hon. Member has put forward?


CONTROL OVER PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, we really have a problem here. The Prime Minister tells us that the program was public, but on November 17, 1982, Mr. Speaker, there were a series of questions on the Order Paper which were never answered.
The Prime Minister will know that we have in our possession a document which puts the control of this program clearly in his Office. Can he tell the House of Commons why, for this particular $150 million, it was felt necessary that the Prime Minister's Office control the dispensation of the funds in a non-public way, in a way that did not allow Members of Parliament to participate, and in a way that did not make it clear to Canadians where the funds were going? Why did the Prime Minister's Office choose to exercise control over this particular $150 million a year program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must begin by saying that I do not know what document the Hon. Members opposite are talking about. I am sure some piece of paper exists wherein people in my Office are encouraging Members of Parliament-preferably, I hope, Liberals-to use a program which has been announced in two Budgets. If my memory is correct, the first $150 million was announced in the Budget of June, 1982, and the second $150 million was announced in the Budget of April, 1983. Now we have the great scandal, Mr. Speaker, of the Prime Minister's Office-which is attached to a Liberal Prime Minister- telling these Members to hustle and use these programs which have been publicly announced. I would hope the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, which is paid for at public expense, and which costs-


Mr. Turner:: Over $1 million a year.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -over $1 million a year-I would hope that he would see that his own officials-


Erik Nielsen: What is your budget?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Andre:: That is only 10 per cent of his vacation budget.


Mr. Hees:: It was to pay for your last trip.
February 10, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I was in front of a parliamentary committee a few months ago answering questions on the size of my Office. 1 indicated that it had reduced in size. Since the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), as the then Prime Minister, ran the Prime Minister's Office, my Office has shrunk in size.


An Hon. Member:: But increased in quality.


Mr. McDermid:: Tell us about the PCO. Tell us where you moved them?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As one of my colleagues says, it has shrunk in size and increased in quality. That is certain, Mr. Speaker.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Jim Coutts will never forget that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And to prove that it has increased in quality-


An Hon. Member:: It is of poorer quality than ever.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, I suggest to the Hon. Member who asked the question that his colleagues are not interested in an answer.


Mr. Dick:: You forgot what he asked.


INVOLVEMENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The basic question is why the Prime Minister will not come clean with the Canadian public and tell us why his Office wanted to control these projects. He indicated to the House that it is fairly normal. I should like to read a couple of quotes and ask the Prime Minister if this is normal. One indicates that it is presently unclear whether the cost of any resources required to implement the projects is to be taken from the $150 million or can be considered as additional to the $150 million, and that a representative of the Prime Minister's Office is to clarify the situation. There are many quotations similar to this, related to the confidentiality that must be maintained.


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


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to ask whether the Prime Minister's office was playing politics with the lives of unemployed Canadians. Why was the Prime Minister's Office making first class unemployed Canadians in some regions and second class unemployed Canadians in other regions? Why is that a prime ministerial responsibility?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Hon. Member quoted what I think are not very telling points. He alleges that the document says that we distinguish between the unemployed in some part of the country and other unem-
Oral Questions
ployed. Could he give that quotation please, or is he just making it up, as I suspect he is?


LISTING OF OPPOSITION MEMBERS' NAMES
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am always ready to be of service to the Prime Minister. Two weeks ago he did not know how many unemployed there were in the country, and now he does not know how many people work in his office. The PMO in 1983-84, the PCO and the PFRO, whatever that is, and the rest of it, are going to spend $85.6 million, and they have 258,000 person years.
My question is the following. In light of the matter raised in a direct reference to the issue-

Just wait and see, they are next. We are going to get those guys from Quebec, every one.

In view of the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, can the Prime Minister assure the House that within the last 72 hours no meetings were held by functionaries, political or otherwise, in his Office, who made lists of names of Members of the House who have been raising questions in regard to the special fund? Can he give us the assurance that no such lists were prepared on Members of the NDP and Members of the Opposition, and that he will return to his Office and terminate immediately any such activity and any individuals involved in it, because it has been going on?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I must tell the Leader of the Opposition that there is a distinction between the Prime Minister's Office, the Privy Council Office, and the Federal-Provincial Relations Office.


An Hon. Member:: Not in your Government.


Mr. McLean:: There used to be.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition is making a very serious accusation. He is saying that the Privy Council Office is not an impartial office politically. He is saying it is the same as the Prime Minister's Office. I say he has made an unfounded statement and a shameful one that he should withdraw.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: I must point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition that this is the third questioner on his side, and until now the New Democratic Party has not had an opportunity. A supplementary question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it must be pretty shameful for the Prime Minister to be alarmed by it.

February 10, 1984
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He just had the temerity to stand there and say that he was speaking as a Liberal Prime Minister. What he has done is politicize the entire Public Service, and that is what is wrong with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: That is what he has been doing; he has been doing it all along.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The interests of the Liberal Party take precedence over the interests of ordinary Canadians, particularly the unemployed.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE ON QUESTION OF LISTS
Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 ask the
Prime Minister to give Hon. Members of the House, members of the New Democratic Party and of this Party, his formal assurance that, in regard to questions raised by Hon. Members, no lists were compiled on Members with a view to abusing them and trying to intimidate them in the execution of their duties. I should like the Prime Minister to give us the assurance now, because such conduct is consistent with the kinds of activities we have been hearing about in the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Come clean, Pierre!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I made a distinction between the Prime Minister's Office and I said I hoped that they are showing great concern for Liberals in this country. That is their job.


An Hon. Member:: That is their job?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Their job is being fair. You are supposed to be the Prime Minister of this country.


George Harris Hees: You are supposed to be impartial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Prime Minister has the floor.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition's Office is working for him and not for people on this side. If they are not I am sure he would fire them, because he has indicated a disposition to fire everybody in the Public Service who has been politicized. He says that we have politicized the entire Public Service. If that is his accusation, I suppose that he will fire the entire Public Service. He suspects them all of being servants of the Liberal Party, which is an absurd statement from the Leader of a responsible Party.


Erik Nielsen: You have them all in the Crown corporations and the Senate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have an irresponsible Leader of maybe an irresponsible Opposition.


George Harris Hees: Tell us about the hit list, Pierre. Let us have the news about the hit list.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Public Service of Canada serves the elected Government of this country.


Erik Nielsen: I thought it served the people.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That happens to be Liberal now; it used to be Tory.


George Harris Hees: It is going to be Tory very soon.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be Tory again, but not the way the Leader of the Opposition is conducting his business.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Ian Deans: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Right Hon. Prime Minister.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was pointed out that I did not answer the question. It is true. I am asked about lists-


George Harris Hees: Just give us the hit list, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have been hit in the head.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has difficulty relating questions and answers. Hon. Members should reflect on what is happening to this Question Period which is becoming a series of minor debates, not questions and answers. The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has the floor.


Mr. Nystrom:: With a sensible question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I guess this is what we get for $1 million. I do not want to be part of this. It sounds phoney to me.


John Horton McDermid: You never will be.
*


FINANCE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Minister of Finance. It has been widely reported from sources inside the Finance Department that the Government intends to give even larger tax breaks to the corporate sector next week, and in particular to increase the capital cost allowance and reduce the tax rates for lawyers and doctors. We already give something in the order of $10 billion per year to those same corporations. We have no evidence that it produces any single job anywhere in Canada. Will the Minister assure the House that he will take steps next week to stop this raid on the pockets of the average Canadian taxpayer and make sure that the corporations stop funding their opera-
February 10, 1984

tions out of tax giveaways that result in higher taxes for average Canadian taxpayers?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it is a well known fact that before every Budget there are a number of stories in the press, most of them speculative.


Mr. Jarvis:: Not the last time.


Marc Lalonde: I would expect all of them are speculative, and generally most of them are wrong. I will take my friend's point of view as a representation in the preparation of the next Budget. He will have to reach his own conclusions when he has seen the Budget.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have already reached my conclusion.


CORPORATE AND PERSONAL TAXES
Ian Deans: The Minister has frequently indicated that the reason he cannot provide the support he himself indicates is necessary for so many groups and individuals is because he does not know where to get money. I would point out to the Minister, indeed he knows it already, that as a percentage of total government revenues, corporation taxes have gone from 21.4 per cent to 6.4 per cent. If you compare what is paid by corporations in Canada in federal tax to what is paid by similar corporations in the U.S., you will find that corporations in Canada pay 33 per cent of profit, while in the U.S. the self same corporations pay 40 per cent of profit.
[DOT] (U50)
Will the Minister take steps to put an end to the growing practice of digging into the pockets of ordinary Canadians in order to fund the profit margins of major corporations, many of which spend their money outside this country? Will he rescind the $1 billion tax increase to take effect this year and which will affect every Canadian family, in an effort to try to show that the Government is beginning to come to grips with the lack of corporate responsibility, indeed the lack of government responsibility?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my friend that if the share of taxes paid by corporations has declined during the recession, there is nothing surprising about it, for the simple reason that profits have drastically declined during the recession. My friend knows, for instance, that a large number of corporations not only had no profits, but they had very substantial losses during that period. If corporations have losses, obviously they are not in a position to pay taxes. My friend also knows that even in 1983, with the recovery, the share of the Gross National Product taken by profits was smaller than it was before the recession. It is the other groups in society who have comparatively maintained or increased their share of the GNP.
Oral Questions
As far as his recommendation at the end of his question is concerned, I remind him that there is no guarantee that the manufacturers' tax increase would necessarily be passed on to the consumer. It depends on the competition. Some corporations may absorb it in the form of smaller profits or smaller increases in prices, and others may pass it on. It will vary according to the competition and the circumstances. There is no guarantee or assurance that this is necessarily going to be paid by the consumer.


REQUEST FOR AID TO NEEDY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must live in a world quite different from the world lived in by most other people. Surely he does not expect anyone to believe that the corporations which are being asked to pay a higher tax will not, in this instance, pass it on, since it is a sales tax.
If the Minister is saying that we can afford to pay these corporate tax rates out of the pockets of ordinary Canadians, if he is saying that there is in fact more money in the pockets of Canadians which can be passed into the corporations' profit structure, then he must surely recognize that there is money available, given the figures I have shown him, to help those hundreds of thousands of people whose unemployment insurance benefits have run out, those tens of thousands of people who have been forced much against their will onto welfare, and the 40 per cent or more of senior citizens who are now living below the poverty line. If he believes the over-all financial situation of the country justifies raising taxes on the average individual in order to lower the tax rate for corporations and special individuals, then he must be able to say now that he can afford to provide a source of income for those individuals most in need.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would invite my hon. friend to wait until the Budget is brought down next Wednesday. At that time I will be making a general statement on the economic situation in Canada and announcing my proposals in connection with the economy. The Hon. member will then be able to see what priorities have been set for the funding that will be available this year. When the Hon. Member has realized what the Government's priorities are and where the Government has directed this funding, he will be able to draw conclusions which, I hope will, prove satisfactory or at least lead him to support the measures I shall be proposing in this respect.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that over the years, this Government has demonstrated its concern for the most vulnerable groups in our society, and I am thinking of the elderly, the unemployed and people who are in need. The Government's record compares favourably with that of any other industrialized country, and during the recession, we were one of the very few industrialized countries that, instead of reducing social benefits, maintained them to help the neediest

February 10, 1984
Oral Questions
groups in our society. This is a Liberal tradition, and I expect we shall be continuing that tradition in the next budget.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. In answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Waterloo on February 8 regarding the $70,000 in taxes on buses used by the handicapped, he stated that the taxable status was based on a previous decision. When a question was asked of the Minister regarding a handicapped gentleman by the name of Mr. Bourne, he stated that Mr. Bourne could not use as a precedent the decision concerning a Mr. Mike Overdyk. The Minister knows Mr. Overdyk won his case against the Tax Appeal Board. It has been well publicized, and he knows what the man went through.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair again has a concern about individual cases being used, and it is not reasonable to expect a Minister to have that level of knowledge at his or her disposal.


John Horton McDermid: This case he knows.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the first time that the Chair has called this matter to the attention of Hon. Members. The principle involved in a case, yes, but the individual case should not be the subject of a question as such, unless to illustrate a principle.


Thomas Scott Fennell: I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but I believe the Minister is aware of this case. Would the Minister agree to review the situation for the handicapped and take into consideration precedents established in the tax courts?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I think we must make a clear distinction between two things: first of all, we have a case which concerns income tax and the Tax Appeal Board's decision regarding the claims of one handicapped individual with respect to his tax return. Second, we have an excise tax case that is entirely different and not dealt with in the same manner. As I said previously to the Hon. Member about the decision of the Tax Appeal Board which made it possible to deduct expenses in very specific cases, the Department of National Revenue had decided, on the basis of one specific case mentioned by the Hon. Member, that the Court's decision would apply to similar cases. I think that is clear and that is what the Hon. Member was concerned about.


TRAVEL EXPENSES OF THE WORKING HANDICAPPED
Thomas Scott Fennell: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister has any human decency, would he prevail upon the Minister of Finance to put something into the Budget so handicapped people can deduct the normal expenses incurred when they have to take their own private transportation to work, and the other expenses the handicapped incur?


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I imagine the Minister of Finance heard the Hon. Member's representations, since he is here in the House.


HOUSING
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In contrast to many government programs which throw money at large corporations, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP, provides direct benefits to ordinary home owners. It improves the quality of housing and has an immediate impact on employment, as well as generating spinoffs in a local community. Recognizing that this is a good program, will the Minister expand it so that it no longer discriminates against Canadians who live in areas which have not yet been designated, and will the Government enlarge the funding so that it can help the economy now when it needs some stimulation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his support. The RRAP Program has been historically a very successful housing program. It has saved many many homes which would have had to be replaced with new ones had this not been done.
In reassessing our social housing program we are trying to find ways to stretch every dollar and house more and more people. We are considering whether we should move some of the money allocated for traditional social housing programs into home renovation and home restoration, especially in hostel type of accommodation, and to see whether we could use this avenue. I thank the Hon. Member for his support.


DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, just to underline the importance of this, three communities in my riding have never been designated as eligible for RRAP. CMHC officials have admitted that from one of the small communities they have over 100 requests annually
February 10, 1984

for assistance under the program. I hope the Minister is able to get more funding, and not just from other housing projects. If the Minister is absolutely unable to get additional funding for the project, could he at least redistribute the present funding so that communities or neighbourhoods which have been discriminated against in the past will have an opportunity of access to that program in the future?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would check the Supplementary Estimates over the past many months he would find that wherever possible, when funds became available which were not utilized in other programs, we have favoured RRAP. We have in fact reallocated money to this program. We are looking at the problem of expanding the coverage of the program. However, I have to say to the Hon. Member that, until such time as we can inject a considerable amount of new funds, it would be very unfair to those who have been on the waiting list for some time to spread the program right across the country.

Oral Questions CANADA LABOUR CODE


PROPOSAL TO ENACT YUKON LABOUR CODE
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. For some long time, but most particularly in the last three years, the Government of the Yukon has been considering and studying entry into labour legislation, and particularly the formation of a Yukon labour code. This would require the consent of the Minister.
In order to avoid a supplementary question, what is his reaction to the request from the appropriate Minister, who, I believe has been in correspondence with him? This requires an amendment to Part V of the Code. The Minister has been indicating quite openly that we might expect amendments to the Code in various other Parts. Would the Minister consider that particular amendment which would permit the Government of the Yukon to enact a Yukon labour code?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my departmental officials are looking into the matter at the present time, and I expect the Hon. Member will have his answer when the amendments to the Canada Labour Code are tabled.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations and deals with the extremely dangerous situation that has developed in Lebanon, particularly the firing of shells from the New Jersey on the Druze-Moslem positions which are supported by Syria, and in turn by the Soviet Union. I understand that the Secretary General of the U.N. has indicated that the U.N. would participate, under certain conditions, to try to solve some of these problems. Have we given instructions to our Ambassador at the U.N. to support the work of the U.N. in this connection? 1 think this is one way of trying to resolve a very, very dangerous situation.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, the position of Canada with respect to peacekeeping forces is well known. It would apply in this particular instance of Lebanon. Our position is that we would participate in such a force if it were to be organized. Obviously there are a number of conditions attached to our participation. First, it would have to be a U.N. force. Second, it would have to be acceptable to the parties involved, obviously. Third, it would have to be accompanied by a ceasefire. The principle of peace-keeping operations is one that Canadian diplomacy has accepted. The practice necessitates the satisfactory realization of the conditions 1 have indicated.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Yesterday an agreement was signed providing $300,000 each between Victoria and Ottawa to study the environmental, social, and economic impacts of offshore drilling. Does the Minister think the amount of $70,000 in that fund for experts to look at the biological data that have been provided by Petro-Canada and Chevron is enough? Would he tell Members of this House and the people of British Columbia why there is no intervener funding? The Beaufort Sea hearing got $1 million in intervener funding. That process was given $3.5 million. Why was only $600,000 given for British Columbia? Why is there no intervener funding?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will take the question of the Hon. Member as notice. I will answer him as quickly as possible.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to accept a supplementary question. The Minister says he would like to take notice and answer the question another time. If the Hon. Member has a supplementary question that is relevant, I will recognize him.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is very relevant.

February 10, 1984
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR FURTHER FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: In 1971 the Minister's Government placed an official legal moratorium on offshore drilling in British Columbia because of the danger that offshore drilling posed to the billion dollar plus commercial sport and native fishery. I am sure the Minister is aware of the hearings which are going on relating to the Ocean Ranger disaster. That is costing $13 million. Would the Minister not agree, in principle at the very least, that more money should be provided for this hearing process in British Columbia so that we can evaluate the dangers before the fact; before lives, industry, and fish stocks are lost? Rather than spending $13 million after the fact, let us spend more than $300,000 before the fact and evaluate the dangers of drilling in the Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance before serious damage is done to British Columbia's environment.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly study the suggestion of the Hon. Member. I would like to remind him that the policy of the Department is always a very cautious one which does not allow developments or actions which could hamper the fish habitat. I would remind him that in the case of the contaminated sediment from False Creek the Department issued two permits-


James Ross Fulton: No, no, offshore drilling. You signed the agreement yesterday.


Pierre De Bané: -but to dump uncontaminated sediments. That responsibility of the Department we intend to discharge very strictly.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Government's commitment to NATO, and to Canadians, to increase defence budgets by 3 per cent per year until the fiscal year 1986-87 has been dropped. The Government has decided to stop these increases as of the fiscal year 1984-85 and keep the budget flat thereafter. That will make it impossible for the Canadian Armed Forces to fulfil NATO obligations.
Is the Minister prepared to say the Government will reverse this short-sighted decision to stop increases in the fiscal year 1984-85? Will he at least have the honesty to say what NATO commitments we are going to drop? The Armed Forces cannot fulfil the NATO commitments we have if that decision of the Government to stop the increases in the budget goes ahead.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. gentleman to review the Throne Speech. In the Throne Speech comments were made to the effect that we are maintaining our real growth of 3 per cent in terms of military expenditures. That is the Government's
position. I would ask the hon. gentleman as well to review the Estimates when they are tabled in a short time to see that indeed the Government is carrying forward on its commitment.
The Opposition has the impression that we are reducing military expenditures. I would point out to him that since 1973-74 we have increased our military expenditures on an annual basis. At that time our total defence expenditures were $2.2 billion. This year our estimates are for expenditures of $8 billion. That is a substantial increase.
The only material reduction in defence expenditures was in 1979-80 when the Tories were in power.


Harvie Andre: According to this Cabinet document, the Armed Forces will be provided with about half of what they require to meet the minimum NATO requirements. I am talking about minimum requirements.


LEVEL OF FUNDING
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, what I want to know from the Minister is if the Armed Forces will have the necessary funds to meet our obligations, or will he have the honesty to say that we are dropping some of these commitments because we will simply not provide our troops with the equipment, the weapons necessary to fulfil these obligations? It has to be one or the other.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would call the attention of the Hon. Member to the fact that all of our major military capital expenditures in the recent past have been in order to meet that NATO commitment. Our frigates, our CF-18s, our Leopard tanks, and even our wheeled vehicles have been aimed at meeting the NATO commitment. We are meeting the NATO commitment and it is fully our intention to continue to meet our NATO commitment. The Hon. Member is making allegations that are unfounded.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Northumberland.


George Harris Hees: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but as the Prime Minister got word that I was about to ask him a question he ducked out of the House. I would ask if I could be recognized on another day.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and
February 10, 1984

Oceans. This week we were visited by a delegation of West Coast fishermen. Their prime objective was to see the Government assist in rebuilding the stocks that are in serious jeopardy at the present time.
Would the Minister propose to Cabinet that, under the Special Capital Recovery Projects Program, instead of spending $42 million renovating an old government building in downtown Vancouver which has no long term employment creation potential, the $42 million be put into a pilot project that would permit members of the Fisheries Coalition and others to go out and rehabilitate streams, build incubation boxes and spawning beds, and use this money in a more constructive way than merely adding carpets to an old government building so that public servants can be comfortably ensconced?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that several initiatives can be taken to rehabilitate and reconstitute the stocks on the Pacific Coast. As you know, the Government has already committed over $150 million for the Salmonid Enhancement Program. This year and next year we will be injecting something like $75 million into that program.
Protection of the fish habitat, an initiative suggested by the Hon. Member, is certainly something very worth-while to pursue, but I think we must face the fact once and for all that the best, most efficient, and less costly way of increasing the stocks is by fishing less. That has to be understood.
I am sure most of the fishermen realize that we must reduce the fishing effort if we want to give the fish a chance to rebuild.


Mr. Speaker:: A brief supplementary. The Chair would like to recognize one other member.


PROPOSAL THAT COMMITTEE VISIT WEST COAST
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, there are many other dimensions to this question that might be explored. However, I have a question for the Minister in light of the motion that was passed by all parties at yesterday's meeting of the standing committee, that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be empowered to travel immediately to the West Coast to visit fishing communities and learn more first hand from the fishermen and their families about how they wish to participate in the rehabilitation of our fishing industry. Will the Minister and the Government support the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry being given this reference and immediately empowered to travel to the West Coast and come back with recommendations for consideration by the whole House?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, my attitude has always been the same. It is not for me to become involved in the work of the parliamentary committee.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Do you support it?
Oral Questions


Pierre De Bané: It will have to be studied in due course, and I will ask the advice of my Government House Leader.


FORESTRY
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, partly because the Minister responsible for the Canadian forestry service is not here today. The Minister of Finance will be aware that negotiations for a new federal-provincial forestry agreement in British Columbia have broken down. Consequently, possibly only $5 million instead of some $52 million will be expended by the federal Government in British Columbia for forestry in the coming year.
He should also be aware that there are no new agreements for the big three provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia, in the areas of forestry. Since there is only $10 million out of some $130 million allocated for forestry renewal by the federal Government actually being spent, will he give us some assurance that the moneys not spent from this year's allocation this year, because of the failure of the provinces and the federal Government to reach agreements, will be added to whatever moneys might be planned for this coming fiscal year in order that we can save what little is left in many provinces of the most important industry in this country?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed there are discussions taking place with the various provinces concerning the extension of agreements dealing with forestry. Some of these agreements, such as the one with the Government of Manitoba, have been signed. In other provinces, such as British Columbia, it seems to be more difficult to get an agreement. I know that my colleague is spending a lot of time and effort to try to arrive at a satisfactory agreement. We will pursue our efforts in that regard. As to the specific request of the Hon. Member, it will be given consideration.


Yvon Pinard: A point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member's supplementary question please be brief? The hour has expired.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Could we have a brief supplementary question, and then the point of order?


Yvon Pinard: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair would like to allow a brief supplementary question and then go to the point of order.

February 10, 1984
The Budget


EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Forests in British Columbia says that he has the authority from his provincial Government to at least spend the $5 million as under the existing agreement. Apparently we do not have the assurance that the federal $5 million share under the existing agreement will be available for at least a one year extension of that federal-provincial agreement. Can we have the commitment now from the Minister of Finance that the $5 million out of the $130 million that had been allocated will in fact be available, so that we do not throw away even that minimal chance to renew a little of our forest resource in British Columbia?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the Hon. Member's representations to the attention of the Minister responsible for forestry. However, I would emphasize that there is nothing preventing the Government of British Columbia from spending that money on its own resources. The forests and Crown land belong to the provincial Government. There is nothing preventing the provincial Government from spending the $5 million if it wants to do so. Let it go ahead. I will applaud that. Since it is its forests and its resources, why doesn't it go ahead and spend more?


THE BUDGET
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Government House Leader said that perhaps by Question Period today he would be able to indicate the timing of the Budget next Wednesday. I indicated yesterday that we would be prepared to consent to extend the hours of sitting to the traditional time of eight o'clock to hear that Budget.
1 have considered the matter very carefully and consulted with my colleagues since that time. We are prepared now, should the Government be disposed to accept the offer, to suggest four o'clock. By that time I think all of the exchanges would be closed. If that would suit the convenience of the Government more than eight o'clock, we are certainly prepared to consent to four o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I had indicated to you earlier that I wanted to rise on a point of order, to deal exactly with this question. We would have saved a lot of time if I had been recognized first.
What I am saying-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask Members to be a little tolerant with the Chair. It has not been the best day for the Chair.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Wyatt Dick: It has not been the best day for the Government either.


Yvon Pinard: Yesterday I indicated that we would be in a better position today to be more specific as to the exact timing of the budget presentation. I have said that we received an indication from the Official Opposition that the Official Opposition preferred eight o'clock in the evening. In fact, the Official Opposition offered consent for eight o'clock yesterday. I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we preferred the afternoon. The Official Opposition had refused the Budget being presented at 4.30 p.m. We are very pleased that now the Official Opposition has reconsidered and accepts four o'clock.
We got in touch with the exchange market people, and most of those to whom we have spoken prefer an afternoon Budget. We very much welcome this co-operation. We are now experimenting with parliamentary reform, and having finally eliminated evening sittings, I think it is in the spirit of parliamentary reform that we have all major presentations, including Budget presentations, in the afternoon. Therefore, I welcome the consent offered by the Official Opposition that the Budget be presented at four o'clock in the afternoon next Wednesday.
There is, though, the requirement of a specific House order under Standing Order 64(2). Pursuant to Standing Order 64(2) I request, Mr. Speaker, that you designate the necessary Order of the Day to permit the Minister of Finance to propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 64(3) and to make his Budget presentation on Wednesday next, February 15, 1984.
The understanding and the agreement after consultations with the House Leader of the NDP as well, who I also thank very much for his co-operation, is that the Budget presentation be made at 4 p.m., and that if we reach Orders of the Day before 4 p.m. on Wednesday afternoon, the agreement is that the sitting be suspended until 4 p.m.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the agreement which has been worked out along the lines I anticipated will be satisfactory. I had thought 4.08.36 p.m. myself, but I think four o'clock will be satisfactory!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is what you get with Laxer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is one remaining consent that should be on the record, and that is as laid out by the Government House Leader with respect to reaching Orders of the Day prior to four o'clock on Wednesday. We are agreeable that, should that happen, the sitting of the House be suspended. Of course, we will go through the normal Question Period hour and, if we reach Orders of the Day before four o'clock, of
February 10, 1984

Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
course we agree to suspend the sitting until 4 p.m. for the Budget.
['Agreed.']
Yvon Pinard: That was exactly the second part of the consent I was seeking. I said that if we reached Orders of the Day before four o'clock, the sitting be suspended. I welcome this consent as well, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



Pierre Bussières: would not want to tax your patience, Mr. Speaker, but in answer to the Hon. Members for Waterloo and Beaches earlier this week I said that we did not collect any taxes on the sale of buses for the handicapped. However, since the money had already been withheld, we paid it back yesterday. Technically speaking, we refunded rather than collected the money.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to thank the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) for correcting that statement. I hope that he will correct the basic injustice as well.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I also want to recognize the point that the Minister is making, which is substantial. In fact, the matter-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The Hon. Minister has risen to make a correction to the record or to give an explanation.


André Ouellet: Which has been done.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister made a statement which perhaps clarified certain things. It is a privilege extended by the House but the Chair does not propose to enter or permit debate on this matter.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) on Thursday, February 9, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


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. 340, 362, 385 and 389.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Given past patterns and current post-secondary enrolment, how many Canada Student Loans will be consolidated by students leaving full-time studies between August 1, 1982 and July 31, 1983?
2.	In each of the past four years, what was the total number of loans consolidated?
3.	What is the total dollar value of loans that it is forecast will be consolidated in the fiscal year 1982-83?
4.	In each of the past four years, what was the average per capita value of loans consolidated and what is the forecast per capita value of loans which will be consolidated in the fiscal year 1982-83?
5.	How many of the students who consolidated their loans in each of the past four years and for whom consolidation is forecast in the fiscal year 1982-83 have been in the loans program for (a) one year (b) two years (c) three years (d) four years (e) five or more years?
6.	What was the rate of default on the loans in each of the past four years and what is the rate forecast to be in the fiscal year 1982-83?
7.	In each of the past four years and forecast for the fiscal year 1982-83, what was the difference between the interest rate charged on Canada Student loans and the average prime rate on a quarterly basis?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: 1-4. Canada Student loans consolidated by full-time students leaving full-time
studies.			
	No. of loans		Average
Loan Year	consolidated	Total value	per capita1978-79	59,000	$129,000,000	$2,1861979-80	57,000	133,000,000	2,3331980-81	56,000	136,000,000	2,4291981-82	63,000	156,000,000	2,4761982-83 (est.)	65,000-70,000	$200,000,000	$2,857 to $3,077
Note: Current computer system does not maintain data on a historical basis. Therefore the above only represent estimates.
5.	Computer records of loans are only maintained on a cumulative basis; therefore, it is not possible to determine the number of years for which the students who have consolidated their loans have been in the Canada Student loans Program.
6.	The default rate is defined as the ratio of students who have become liable to repay their loans (i.e have consolidated) as compared to those who have had a claim paid to a lender because of default in payment under their consolidation agreement. The rates below are cumulative from inception of the program to the end of each loan year indicated.
1270

February 10, 1984
Order Paper Questions
1978/79	8.6	per cent1979/80	9.2	per cent1980/81	9.7	per cent1981/82	10.1	percent1982/83	10.7	per cent (projected)
7.
Fiscal Year Quarter
1978- 79	1
3
1979-	80	1
3
1980-	81	I
3
1981-	82	1
3
1982-	83	1
3
Government Rate over (+)/under (-) chartered bank prime
per cent
-1.13
-2.17
-2.5
-2.67
-4.0
-4.13
-4.96
-2.26
+0.83
-3.5
-4.83
-6.92
-5.83
-1.5
-1.33
-2.0
+ 1.46 +3.77 +4.38 +5.38 (est)
Student rate over (+)/under ( -) chartered bank prime
per cent
-0.75
-1.8
-2.13
-2.3
-4.13
-4.23
-5.08
-2.38
+0.58
-3.75
-5.08
-7.17
-6.46
-2.13
-1.96
-2.63
+0.96
+3.27
+3.88
+4.88


Mr. St. Germain: Since April 1, 1981 did any firms or individuals receive support under the Canada Marketing Assistance Program of the Canadian Government Office of Tourism and, if so, in each province how many (a) firms (b) individuals and at what total cost to date?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Yes, a number of firms have received support under the Canada Marketing Assistance Program (CANMAP) since its inception, April 1, 1982:


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: the Federal-Provincial Criminal Legal Aid Agreements are currently under renegotiation with all ten provinces. Canada has made an offer to the provinces which for 1983-84 will increase Canada's total contribution to over $40M. This is an increase of $12M, or 43 per cent, over what was due in 1982-83 under the old agreement. In 1984-85, Canada's contribution will increase to $45M.
These amounts do not include additional financial assistance to be provided to the provinces for legal aid services to young offenders, required as a result of the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act on April 1, 1984. This additional cost sharing is currently under negotiation with the provinces.


Mr. Howie: Did the Department of Justice undertake a study of administrative law tribunals and, if so, what was (a) the time frame of the study (b) the estimated cost (c) the purpose of the study?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned:
1.	(a) Yes, the Department of Justice is studying federal administrative tribunals in the context of a three-year administrative law reform project that began in fiscal year 1983-84 and is expected to continue through fiscal year 1985-86.
(b)	The estimated cost of the entire project is $850,000.
(c)	Project staff and consultants are doing research and preparing recommendations on the following subjects:
1.	the rationalization of social benefits appeals tribunals;
2.	minimum uniform guidelines on administrative procedure for tribunals and the feasibility of establishing an advisory council on tribunals;
3.	revisions to the Statutory Instruments Act;
4.	law concerning the Crown, including Crown proceedings and immunities, prerogatives, privileges and liabilities.
Ontario	17
British Columbia	16
Quebec	7
Alberta	5
Saskatchewan	3
Newfoundland	1
Nova Scotia	1
Manitoba	1
Northwest Territories	1
Yukon Territory	1
(b) None.
The total cost to date is in the amount of $444,276.57.


Mr. Howie: Will the Government renegotiate the federal-provincial legal aid agreements and what is the estimated cost to Canada of this renegotiation?


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 136 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 136 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 10, 1984


Mr. Patterson: 1.	Since 1975, by year, how many murders took place in Canada?
2.	By year, how many murders involved children under the age of 16 years?
3.	Since 1975, by year, how many rapes/sexual assaults on children took place?
4.	In the case of child murders, by year, how many involved sexual assault on the victim?
5.	(a) Since 1975, by year, in the case of child murders, how many individuals were charged with (i) first degree murder (ii) second degree murder (iii) manslaughter and, in each case, what was the conviction relating to the charge (b) how many individuals (i) charged (ii) convicted had previous criminal records relating to sexual assaults on children?
6.	Since 1975, by year, how many crimes of (a) murder (b) rape/sexual assault were committed by individuals released from penitentiary under (i) mandatory supervision (ii) weekend/day passes under the temporary release program (iii) parole?
7.	Since 1975, for those persons charged with rape/sexual assault, how many (a) were released on bail (b) committed crimes relating to sexual assault while on bail?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation before us today represents a major turning point for Canada's security intelligence system. We are asking Parliament to provide, for the first time in Canada's history, a legal framework more comprehensive, and more detailed, than that of any other security system in the world. Every other country leaves a large part of their security system wholly within the prerogative of government. With Bill C-9 we have tried to reduce that element to an absolute minimum. This Government believes that such an approach is not only desirable, but essential if we are to maintain the necessary balance between effective na-
Security Intelligence Service
tional security and the civil liberties that are fundamental to our society.

Bill C-9 is the result of many years of research, discussion and debate on the way this balance should be achieved. Since the Second World War, there has been, both in Canada and in the rest of the world, an incredible increase in security intelligence activities, generally without legislative authorization or control. In Canada, the present RCMP Security Service has no legislative mandate and exercises powers that are neither defined by Parliament nor regulated by judicial control. As the issue of security becomes increasingly complex, the absence of a specific legal framework raises concerns about our individual rights and freedoms.
These concerns have been addressed by two commissions of inquiry in the last 15 years-the Mackenzie Commission in 1969 and the McDonald Commission in 1981. Both Commissions concluded that to address effectively threats to Canada's security while protecting Canadian civil liberties, our security service should be split out of the RCMP and become more civilian in nature with a legislated mandate and a new system of control and review of security operations.
Responding to these recommendations, the Government developed a detailed set of proposals to reorganize the RCMP security service as a civilian agency, operating under a new framework of mandate, powers and controls and, for the first time, independent review. These proposals were presented last year as Bill C-157 and submitted for examination to a special committee of the Senate. After hearing the representations of interested groups and individuals from across Canada, the Senators reaffirmed the central recommendations of the earlier commissions and endorsed the basic framework proposed in Bill C-157. At the same time they suggested many amendments which will help to achieve the essential balance between national security and individual liberty.
The Senate committee emphasized the urgent need for this legislation. They said that our present security intelligence arrangements are not acceptable and new legislation "should be enacted in the near future". I recognize this sense of urgency. I have tabled the amended legislation as early as possible to facilitate a full parliamentary debate on Bill C-9.
At this stage it is important to focus clearly on the fundamental principles of the Bill. No doubt a Bill dealing so directly with questions of national security in a free society raises many complex and disturbing issues. In an area where a calm and reasoned approach is vital, it is easy to give way to sensationalism or empty rhetoric and lose sight of what is really at stake in Bill C-9. What is not at question today is the need for an efficient security intelligence service. This need has been fully demonstrated by both the Mackenzie and the McDonald Commissions. There have been many occasions in recent years when our national security would have been

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
irreparably damaged if we did not have the accurate intelligence supplied by our present security service.
As the Mackenzie Commission said in 1969;
-the duty of the State to protect its secrets from espionage, its information from unauthorized disclosure, its institutions from subversion and its policies from clandestine influence is indisputable; what are matters for dispute are the organizations and procedures established by the State to meet this responsibility in an area which can tough closely upon the fundamental freedoms of the individual.

At recent hearings before the Senate, where many people challenged the organization and methods we proposed, there was never any question about the need for some kind of security intelligence organization.
We want to restrict the mandate of our Security Service in order to define more clearly, and in greater detail, the scope of our security intelligence activities. We want to indicate the exact powers the Service will be authorized to use, and we want to specify the conditions and limits of use of those powers. We want these conditions to be defined within a detailed framework that will ensure full respect for the law, and we intend to establish a non-governmental and fully independent committee that will monitor the justification of security intelligence activities and report regularly to the Solicitor General of Canada and to Parliament.
The purpose of this Bill is therefore, to a large extent, to provide a new set of guarantees and controls that do not exist at the present time, in order to protect the rights of Canadians against undue interference. If we are at all concerned about the quality of our democracy and the freedom of dissent and political association that is fundamental to our society, I believe this legislation is necessary. The MacDonald Commission emphasized that, in Canada, the aim of a security and intelligence service is to protect the needs of a free and democratic society. That is the whole purpose of Bill C-9. [English]
There are those who say that the new framework being proposed could be introduced within the present RCMP security service. In fact, some people interpret the separation of the security service from the RCMP as an implied criticism of the ability and integrity of our national police force. I want to make it very clear that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the Government's position.
The RCMP is the finest police force in the world. It enjoys a well-deserved international reputation. I, for one, am extremely proud of the force that has displayed such integrity and dedication to the cause of law enforcement. However, the very system which makes the RCMP an effective police force makes it less suited as a security intelligence organization. The RCMP has had the job of providing policing for Canada for well over a century. It has had the responsibility for assuring national security developed as a special division within the RCMP since World War II. However, the way in which the debate on Bill C-157 developed shows that Canadians themselves appreciate the distinction between police work and security work.
It became clear early in the decade that interested Canadians want the Solicitor General to know exactly what the security intelligence service is doing at all times and to be responsible down to the detail of every warrant issued by the court for intrusive investigative action against a suspected threat to the security of Canada. The public and the Senate committee made it clear that only in this way is there adequate accountability for the service.
The Government agrees. This sensible demand requires a close link between the Government and the security service- an important relationship or link of overall government responsibility for what the service does. On the other hand, when one looks at police operations, the public expectation and the long-established tradition are the opposite. Parliament has given the police of Canada, including the RCMP, the Criminal Code; and the Government has given the RCMP policy guidelines for intrusive techniques. The law provides that they obtain warrants from judges.
Everyone surely knows that the Minister, the Solicitor General, does not tell the RCMP when to open and close criminal files. The Solicitor General does not tell the RCMP who to investigate or who not to investigate and where or when to seek a judicial warrant to engage in more intrusive investigation. The Canadian people want police investigations to be entirely free of government interference and direction. In other words, people want the RCMP security service to be accountable, but in police work they want the RCMP to be independent.
It has not been easy for the RCMP to contain at the same time these two conflicting responsibility models. Two royal commissions have shown the problems which can arise. It is time to recognize this incompatibility. It is time to permit the RCMP to continue its traditional and fundamental independence in policing. Indeed, as I will show in a few minutes, its policing role in relation to security is to be considerably enhanced by this Bill. At the same time the security service is to be spun out, its powers of arrest are to be removed, and it is to be given the degree of ministerial involvement and greater accountability which security work requires.
The Mackenzie Commission set out its reasons for separation in 1969 as follows:
Apart from a similarity in some investigative techniques, the differences between police and security duties seems to us to be wide. Police forces are concerned primarily with law enforcement, including post factor investigations, with the collection of evidence and with the prosecution of crimes. Security services are primarily engaged in preventative activities and the collection of intelligence ... We feel, in short, that the professional security service officer is quite different from the professional policeman and that this difference should be reflected in recruiting methods, in training and career patterns and in organizational structure ... On balance, the best solution seems to us to be the creation of a new non-police agency to perform the functions of a security service in Canada.
When the Commission's report was presented to this House, the Hon. Robert Stanfield acknowledged these differences and expressed "doubts" as to whether the "Mounted Police lends
February 10, 1984

itself very readily to the sort of modifications" proposed in the report. The Hon. Tommy Douglas, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, also addressed this issue when he commented:
First of all I refer to the recommendation of the royal commission that there be a civilian, non-police agency because, as they point out, there is a wide difference between police and security duties. Without any reflection whatsoever on the very excellent service the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have performed, there is a great difference between law enforcement and the carrying out of the duties of a security service. There is a difference in the type of training required, the form of recruitment and the structure of a police force, on the one hand, and a security agency on the other.
I submit that it takes a certain degree of training and sophistication to recognize the difference between honest dissent and a desire to subvert our democratic form of society. Therefore, I think that the recommendation of the royal commission for the setting up of a civilian non-police agency has a great deal of merit, and 1 am extremely disappointed that the government has rejected this proposal out of hand.
This issue was examined again by the McDonald Commission in 1981; they concluded that the type of framework necessary for security operations would "work more effectively for a separate and civilian security intelligence agency than for a security service within the national police force".
The question of separation was reviewed once again by the Senate Committee last year, and once again the conclusion was the same. I think we have to agree with a comment the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) made in a press conference following the Senate Committee's report: separation can no longer be considered a major issue. After 15 years of discussing this matter and experimenting with alternatives, all the arguments are in: we need a separate and specialized agency to respond to the increasingly sophisticated threats to our national security.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think that should be Saskatoon East. It wasn't Saskatoon West, I can tell you that. You had better get the security service on this one because I don't think you are right!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I will verify the attribution during the lunch hour.
As I have said, this is in no way a criticism of the RCMP. Members of the present security service have performed outstanding work under very difficult conditions. They have been asked to do a job when no suitable framework is in place to help them do that job properly. Yet they are able to command a high level of respect from the international community. They deserve a better system, and must welcome the prospect of a civilian agency and the improved direction and control such an agency will make possible.
I would like to stress that the RCMP is not, as some critics would have it, being removed from the security intelligence field. Indeed, as Hon. Members know, the legislation specifically provides in Part IV that the RCMP will have the primary jurisdiction to investigate security-related offences, offences which arise out of conduct constituting threats to the security of Canada.
Just as the Mackenzie and McDonald Commissions concluded that the police function is incompatible with the secu-
Security Intelligence Service
rity intelligence function, so too it is necessary to keep a security intelligence agency out of police work. Bill C-9, in making the investigation of security-related crimes the legislative preserve of police authorities, accomplishes this end. In short, in the security field the RCMP role will remain consistent with its well recognized and world renowned primary function, namely enforcing the law.
[Translation)
The new organization must at least be told, in the form of clear and unambiguous legislation, what it is supposed to do. That is why the proposed mandate is such an important part of Bill C-9. This mandate will be a definition by Parliament of the scope and limits of security intelligence activities. For employees of the Security Intelligence Service, it will be the definitive guide to their duties and also constitute a clear point of reference for assessing the efficiency and accuracy of security intelligence activities. By exchanging the present mandate, established by a Cabinet directive, and thus subject to amendment by Parliament and by Cabinet, for a legislated mandate that can be changed only by Parliament, we are taking a giant step forward in protecting the rights of Canadians.

The primary purpose of the service will be to collect and analyze information and threats to Canada's security. The current RCMP security service is mandated-and here I am quoting from the 1975 Cabinet direction-"To maintain internal security by discerning, monitoring, investigating, deterring, preventing and countering individuals or groups"; and then follows a list of security threats. 1 would like to remind Hon. Members that, in keeping with the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, the words "deterring, preventing and countering" do not appear anywhere in Bill C-9. The new service will have no powers, using the McDonald Commission's phrase, to "take measures to enforce security". The primary purpose of the service will be restricted to the collection, analysis and reporting of security intelligence.
In Clause 2 of the Bill you will find carefully worded definitions of these threats: espionage and sabotage, foreign interference, terrorism and subversion. While each of these elements is important, the definition of subversion requires special attention. Other areas of the mandate are generally concerned with activities of foreign agents or activities directed by foreign agents; but subversion may involve Canadian citizens more directly. The definition of subversion draws the critical line dividing legitimate dissent from subversive activity, which may be put under surveillance.
There must be no doubt that Canadians are assured the basic right to engage in political dissent, and to advocate radical change in social practices, government policies or political institutions, without being subject to surveillance for so doing. The McDonald Commission describes the exercise of this right as "the lifeblood of a vibrant democracy", and we could not tolerate any system that threatened to interfere with this right.

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Some people have suggested that, because subversion is so difficult to distinguish from legitimate dissent, we should exclude subversion from the mandate of a security service; but this is surely dangerous. Genuine subversion is a genuine threat to national security, and we must be in a position to deal with such a threat. As the Senate Committee observed:
-it was suggested by some witnesses that subversion should not be a concern of the CS1S at all, specifically because it is so hard to distinguish from legitimate activities. The Committee does not agree with this approach. Even though the limits of subversion are hard to define, it can represent a threat to the security of the state. A state should be in a position to protect itself from illegitimate attempts to weaken its institutions.
Therefore, I have tried to formulate a definition that focuses precisely on that aspect of subversion which can seriously endanger a democratic society. The McDonald Commission emphasized, and I quote:
The key element in the subversive activity which is the proper subject of security intelligence activity is the attempt to undermine or attack, through violence or unlawful means, the basis values, processes and structures of democratic government in Canada.
The definition I have proposed accurately reflects that key element, and just that element, of subversion.
[ Translation]
I am convinced that the mandate described in the Bill amounts to the best possible protection of civil liberties in Canada. Never in any instance will it be possible to equate protest or non-violent and legitimate unrest with a threat to national security. Still, to avoid any possibility of misleading interpretation, no mater how remote, we have clearly indicated in the Bill that no one can be investigated by the Service only because he or she has taken part in activities related to lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.

I should also point out that the mandate, as reworded in the Bill before you, limits all security investigations to those that are "strictly necessary", in the interests of national security. This is a clear signal that the mandate is to be interpreted narrowly. Only if it is demonstrably necessary for national security will an investigation be supported by this mandate.
While the mandate defines the job the security service is expected to do, we must also tell the service how this job is to be performed. Bill C-9 sets out the specific powers of investigation available to the service, and it sets out the conditions which will govern the exercise of these powers. These powers are admittedly considerable, and many people are understandably uneasy about giving any agency this capacity for investigation. But such a capacity is necessary. The McDonald Commission, whose unquestioned concern for the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians permeates its report, was equally concerned that the security agency be given full investigative powers appropriate to its legitimate and mandated function. The Commissioners observed, and I quote:
Because of the secrecy maintained by those who pose the most serious threat to Canada's internal security, the security intelligence agency must be authorized to employ a variety of investigative techniques to enable it to collect
information. The means available to it must range all the way from studying open sources of research material and obtaining information from citizens, police forces and government agencies... to using much more covert and intrusive methods that may involve the use of powers not available under law to the ordinary citizen.
The Senate Committee reached the same conclusion last year. It said:
While the utility of any given technique varies with the circumstances, to absolutely deny one or the other to the agency would be to unreasonably restrict its operations. The Committee is aware of the dangers inherent in allowing such powers to be given to anyone. But... the proper way to avoid abuse is to restrict (these powers) to specific and exigent circumstances ... Thus mail-opening, for example, will be available but only in a proper case where the agency meets a strict set of conditions, and where the prescribed mandate and functions of the agency allow it.
In weighing the implications of these powers, Members should note that Bill C-9 sets out an exceptionally strict series of conditions for the use of these powers, and for the first time these powers will be subject to judicial control through the warrant process. I note that the imposition of judges as a safeguard on the use of these powers has no counterpart in present arrangements. It represents a great step forward in the protection of rights. The service will not be allowed to exercise any intrusive powers without a judicial warrant, and every application for a warrant must first be approved by the Solicitor General. A judge who issues a warrant must first be satisfied that its use falls within the mandate of the service, other investigative techniques have been tried, or that there are special reasons why the technique in question is uniquely necessary.
There are still more conditions which would help to ensure that these powers are not abused. For example, to prevent "judge-shopping" all warrant applications would have to include details of any previous applications, and all warrants would have a maximum time limit of one year. Taken together, these conditions represent a substantial set of safeguards against the potential for abuse in intelligence operations, and, I might add, these safeguards have no counterpart in our existing arrangements. They are a great step forward in the protection of rights.
Bill C-9 also introduces a new set of provisions for monitoring and reviewing security intelligence operations. The Solicitor General will be fully responsible and fully accountable for the security service, as in the present system. But the Bill would introduce two additional elements to ensure that the system as a whole is operating as intended. These are perhaps the most innovative features of our proposed legislation, and I believe they are vital as an effective and credible guarantee that intelligence operations remain within the rule of law. Compared to present arrangements, they are a further protection of the rights of Canadians.
First, there will be an Inspector General, who will monitor and review the operational activities of the service. He will have full access to information on intelligence operations, and his job will be to ensure that existing policies and procedures are being observed by the service. The Inspector General must advise the Minister of any activities he feels are unauthorized or unlawful, or which involve an unreasonable use of investiga-
February 10, 1984____________________________COMMONS
tive powers, and any illegalities must be reported by the Minister to the Attorney General.
Second, there will be an external Security Intelligence Review Committee, made up of respected "outsiders" who have no vested interest in the service. At least three and up to five Privy Councillors who are not sitting in Parliament will be appointed by Order in Council, after the Prime Minister has consulted with the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of each Party in this House with at least 12 sitting Members.
The Review Committee will have full access to detailed information on the activities of the service. It will receive regular reports from the Director of the service and from the Inspector General. It will conduct an ongoing review of policies and procedures, making recommendations to the Minister as it sees fit. It will investigate complaints against the service and will review the security screening process affecting immigration and government employment, investigating specific cases, if necessary. This opportunity to seek review by citizens who are denied government employment, denied promotion within the Government, or denied various immigration possibilities, is something new, created for the first time by this legislation. It should also be considered a great step forward for civil liberties.
Finally, this Review Committee will report annually to Parliament and under present rules this report would be referred to a standing committee. Thus, an important role of the Review Committee will be to highlight any concern about abuse of powers within the service and to bring particular issues of policy into the field of public and parliamentary debate.

At the risk of appearing to be repetitious, I would like to emphasize the fact that all the provisions of the Bill, including the legislated terms of reference, the powers defined by Parliament, the judicial control and the review by an external organization, are new and are all necessary to maintain a proper balance between national security and the civil liberties of Canadians. None of these guarantees do exist at the present time. We are breaking new ground with this Bill, and as always, this is not easy to do.
Every Government in the world is reluctant to provide a detailed legislative framework for security intelligence activities. The reason for this is obvious. Whenever people are asked to think about the powers required to ensure the efficiency of security intelligence, they feel deeply concerned. It is thus easy for critics to keep stressing the dangers inherent to these powers and to avoid mentioning the provisions set up for their use.

Shall I call it one o'clock?


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.
DEBATES_______________________________________________1275
Security Intelligence Service AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. the Solicitor General.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, having almost completed my remarks, I should like to resume where I left off.
The Government is attempting to deal openly and frankly with the issue of national security. We believe that the best way to protect civil liberties is to establish publicly a legal framework which will enable us to define and control intelligence activities. We also believe that such a framework cannot be effective unless we have the support and understanding of the public.
Few people would deny the need for legislation in this area. With the Charter of Rights and Freedoms we have demonstrated and affirmed our commitment to individual liberty. We have acted on that commitment with initiatives such as the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the Young Offenders Act. In the context of these accomplishments. Bill C-9 responds to a significant gap, a gap that could seriously undermine the genuine achievements of this Parliament. That is why this legislation is vitally important.
Bill C-9 is the result of a long and difficult process which began 15 years ago. The Government has shown its good faith on the issue. We are not after Orwellian security service and we are not out to transform Canada into a police state. On the contrary, we have listened to public comment on our proposals and, while I may have felt that some criticisms were exaggerated, I recognize that the concerns were real. I have done my best to accommodate those concerns in Bill C-9 and I believe this Bill is a better piece of legislation as a result.
These are the proposals, Mr. Speaker. I would like to see these important safeguards put in place and as soon as possible; but that is up to Parliament. After 15 years of discussion and debate I think the real issue today is this: 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. Whatever we do during this parliamentary session, we will be forced to make one of these choices. I think, Mr. Speaker, the right choice is obvious.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to finally-and I underline the word "finally"-have the opportunity to enter into debate on the floor of the House of Commons on this most important piece of legislation. There should be no mistaking the fact that this Bill under consider-

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
ation today deserves full and carefull scrutiny. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) made reference in his remarks today to the fact there has been a long period of time under which the security service and the security capacity of our country has been under examination. I propose to deal at length later in my remarks with respect to this aspect of the matter, but the fact is that we finally have the opportunity of looking at this legislation on the floor of the House of Commons for the first time. This is the first occasion that the elected representatives of the people of Canada have had to enter into this particular debate over the 15 years referred to by the Solicitor General during which this matter has been under consideration.
This legislation seeks to establish a new civilian security force for Canada. That force, if formed, would differ from a standard police force in two critical respects: it would be granted powers to engage in intrusive surveillance far greater than those available at the present time to law enforcement agencies; secondly, it would use those powers as a means to achieve an objective which differs in kind and substance from the objective of police forces. Instead of investigating crimes and bringing criminals to justice, the new agency would be charged with the collection of information on Canadian groups and individuals as well as foreign nationals who have been targeted for surveillance. There can be no question about the fact that, even in a democratic society, knowledge is power. Governments and government agencies thrive on information and collect it assiduously. Once they have it, they are reluctant to divulge it except for their own purposes.
We have had a recent and clear example of how confidential information can be misused by this Government, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) saw fit to direct his minions to scour the departmental files in an attempt to find written materials which could be used in a political way, and other ways, against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mul-roney). Ultimately that attempt failed. In fact, the ruse that was used by the Minister of Finance backfired; he has been subjected to great criticism across this land for his actions in an attempt to sustain the life of a dying government in the dying days of a Parliament.
The fact that the Minister was unable to achieve his ends through the unauthorized use of confidential material is really not the point in this context, however. What is important is that there was an attempt made to use information submitted to the Government in confidence in order to achieve what I can only describe as crass political objectives. If the Minister of Finance or any Minister of Finance is prepared to stoop to such levels and hunt through Government files in order to find material which may be damaging with respect to any citizen of Canada, it is absolutely critical that information collected clandestinely by a security service not be subject to similar abuses.
That is why this Bill is so important. When we are dealing with legislation which proposes extraordinary powers for a branch of government that will operate of necessity in the shadows, we must be extremely vigilant to ensure that there is no chance that those powers might be abused.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned at the outset, we have waited far too long for specific government initiatives in this regard. On June 26, 1969 the report of the Royal Commission on Security, the Mackenzie Commission, was tabled in this House. After four hours of debate it apparently suffered the fate of a great many royal commission reports; it was shelved and its recommendations were ignored by the Government.
It is some 15 years since that report was received. During that time the security service branch of the RCMP has continued to operate in a form of limbo. It has seen, among other things, the appointment of a civilian director and the hiring of civilian personnel for non-operational positions. In 1977 another royal commission was appointed, that being the McDonald Commission, as the result of events which took place primarily during the 1970s and primarily related to the activities of the FLQ in the Province of Quebec. By virtue of questions that were raised on the floor of the House of Commons, the Government had no recourse but to establish a royal commission to look at the circumstances surrounding allegations of impropriety that occurred at that particular time. I will refer to this matter later on in my remarks with respect to this legislation.
However, I think it is important for us to remember, Mr. Speaker, that during the course of the debate in the House of Commons leading to the McDonald Commission, not once did a member of the government of the day led by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Solicitor General or any member of the executive branch of the government of our country, stand and accept any responsibility whatsoever with respect to any of the occurrences that took place in the security branch under the direction of the Government of Canada.
Part of the mandate of the McDonald Commission was to report and advise regarding the policies and procedures governing the activities of the RCMP in the discharge of its responsibility to the security of Canada. The McDonald Commission reported in 1981 and presented some specific recommendations with respect to security matters. Yet it was not until May of 1983 that the Government got around to presenting the first draft of any legislation whatsoever. This was a delay of some two years, during which time heaven knows what went through the mind of the Minister. The Commission had spoken. The Minister sat mute for two years cogitating, reflecting and considering a response with respect to recommendations made by that Commission. It is hard to believe that after two years the Minister had to give the most serious consideration worthy of that Minister sitting in the other place, a place of sober thought. He had sufficient opportunity and time to consider his response, but it took him two years. It is hard to believe that with two years to draft legislation a Bill as flawed as Bill C-157 was the best that could be produced by this Minister and the Government.
February 10, 1984

It is just as appalling, 15 years after the Mackenzie Commission and two and one half years after the McDonald report, that this is the first opportunity the elected representatives of the people of Canada have had to debate the most critical of issues. That is a dereliction of responsibility on the part of the Government. That is far too long for us to wait to come to grips with respect to this type of legislation.
There is no question in my mind that, as a result of the ineptitude and inefficiency of this Minister and the Government, the morale of individuals who have served on our security service has suffered. They have been scrutinized by royal commissions. The service has been scrutinized by a Senate committee. Instead of producing legislation which was appropriate and realistic, the Minister intoduced a Bill which was poorly conceived, planned and drafted. In the area of national security, which is critical to any country's continued existence, this Government has bungled badly. It has not lived up to its responsibility. I suggest that we are paying the price now.
On the first occasion that we have had to consider this important legislation the Minister has suggested, both inside and outside the House, that we should close our eyes and not consider the matter of the responsibility invested in us by the electorate of Canada. This is unworthy of any minister of any cabinet. We on this side of the House take our responsibilities seriously. We are going to give this matter careful and reasonable consideration. We are not going to close our eyes and let legislation pass which is not satisfactory, appropriate and precise. The Minister should understand this. It has taken him a very long period of time to come up with his own proposals. It is a matter of right that we should give fair and reasonable consideration to this legislation on the floor of the House of Commons and in the course of committee hearings. It is not only the Members of Parliament but also the people of Canada who are interested in having appropriate and affective legislation and they should be given the opportunity of making their views known, notwithstanding the fact that we have had royal commissions and a Senate report. What we have before us now is a so-called new proposal brought forward by the Solicitor General after much surgery has taken place with respect to his original proposal, Bill C-157.
I would have hoped that after the Minister had gone through this process and chosen to act when he brought in this legislation, he could have gotten it right. Perhaps this is being too kind. When the Minister introduced his original legislation, Bill C-157, he said it reflected a fair and reasonable approach. He now says that the criticism of that particular proposal is exaggerated. I can only say that Bill C-157, which was introduced on May 18, 1983, was totally, abysmally and terribly wrong.
I would like to deal with that legislation, Mr. Speaker, because I think it is relevant to what we have before us today. After the 15-year period of consideration by a variety of royal commissions, that legislation was met with universal disapproval and disfavour. It was roundly and soundly criticized by every conceivable force. Provincial attorneys general were
Security Intelligence Service
united in their opposition to that Bill. Civil liberties groups condemned it. The Canadian Bar Association is adamant that the Bill either had to be withdrawn or amended in a very substantial way. If I tried, in the time I had allotted to me today, it would be impossible for me to list all the groups, individuals and agencies that have shown deep concern with respect to the thrust and import of the proposal brought forward by the Minister.
The unified response by Canadians did not occur by accident. It was not a result of knee-jerk reaction. That response took place because the Bill was the most poorly thought out and seriously flawed piece of legislation that I have had the misfortune of seeing introduced in this House. Bill C-157 bore little resemblance to the recommendations made in the report of the McDonald Commission. In section after section fundamental safeguards necessary to protect the rights and liberties of Canadians have been omitted. From any perspective the Bill was an unmitigated disaster.
It was at this point that Members on this side of the House approached the Minister and suggested the subject matter of the Bill be referred to the Commons Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order to obtain the full scrutiny of the elected representatives of the people of Canada. We would have liked to have an all-Party committee which would go forward and consider the subject matter of that initial proposal. It seemed logical that a committee of the House composed of elected representatives would be an appropriate place to study this legislation. That offer was rejected out of hand by the Minister.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like the record to be corrected in the assertion that it was the Government that rejected the establishment of an all-Party committee. The NDP were willing. It was the Conservatives who prevented it from happening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is certainly not a question of privilege. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the air is strange in the House today. There are hallucinatory activities taking place here of which I have no knowledge. I would like to say to the Solicitor General that I was privy to some of the discussions which took place. My colleague from Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence), who was the critic at the time, put the proposition to the Solicitor General that we should indeed have a standing committee of the House of Commons consider this matter.
The question of privilege is preposterous, as you have pointed out, Mr. Speaker. It has no relevance and is in fact without substance. If the Minister cares to dispute it, that is fine. I say that that is the fact. The record will show that the Solicitor General did in fact refer the matter to another body of appointed people. That is, to the other place. A select committee of the Senate was then created for the purpose of looking at the provisions of the original legislation. During this period

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
of 15 years we have had appointed bodies of every description looking at this legislation.
I am making a specific point of this because I think it is important for the people of Canada to understand that this is the first time that people who must seek election from the people of Canada, who reflect their point of view and are sensitive to the points of view of average Canadians, have had an opportunity to consider this legislation. If ever there was any evidence required to show this administration's disdain and contempt for the House, it is shown in the way we were treated with respect to this legislation.
I want to talk about the work of the Senate committee. I think it was immediately obvious to the honourable Senators from both sides as well as independents on that committee that the legislation they were to study was a complete catastrophe. When the committee finally reported, it was unanimous in its castigation of the Bill. In what amounted to a clause by clause analysis and denunciation, the report recommended changes to almost every aspect and area of the Bill.
While it would take far too long for me to discuss all the recommended changes, let me touch upon some of the major proposals for reform. There was no question in the Senators' minds that the mandate for the force was far too loose and ambiguous. How could a force with such extraordinary powers operate under a sense of direction that did not make clear when those powers could be used? Of course, that could not happen if we want to retain freedom and liberty in this country. The Senators responded by making and proposing certain changes to tighten the mandate. They wanted to make it clear just what was meant by "threats to the security of Canada". They wanted to ensure that the force would do what was strictly necessary and no more. I want to deal with that particular and important aspect of the response of the Minister in due course.
The Senators also tried to grapple with the powers that the new force was to have. According to the old Bill, once a warrant was obtained employees of the force were pretty much free to do what they pleased. They could have access to income tax returns, statistical reports, census reports, doctors' files and psychiatric files, just to name a few. It would have been able to eavesdrop and wiretap anybody, any place, anywhere and at any time.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With judicial approval.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You may think that these are pretty broad powers, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, I think any reasoning Canadian would say they are broad powers.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With judicial approval.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You might think that such powers should be handed out only with a great deal of care and only under exceptional circumstances.
The Solicitor General says "by judicial warrant". He has made so many amendments with respect to this provision, after the scrutiny of the Senate, that one can only wonder what was in his mind when he used the term "judicial warrant" in the original proposal.
I want to deal with that because I think it is absolutely fundamental and essential. As I estimated, over half of the Solicitor General's remarks today concerned an area with respect to the vehicle upon which this agency should operate and whether it should be civilian or attached to the RCMP. I suggest to the Solicitor General that he should direct his attention to the primary condiserations that we should be giving to the Bill, which are the implications of the powers, the accountability and the mandate of this new security service. I suggest to the Minister that these are the areas for which we, as legislators, have a very important responsibility.
In the original proposal the Solicitor General made provision to allow a judge to hand out a warrant authorizing such powers if he was convinced that it was necessary to allow the Force to perforn its duties. Therefore, of course, there is judicial involvement. But the guidelines were absolutely missing from that whole scenario. It was highly discretionary on the part of the judge who would be considering that application.
The Senate committee characterized that standard as unreasonably low. I would go further. I would call it unconscionably low. It is, perhaps, a good example of what I would call the indifference to basic principles of justice that characterized that entire Bill.
There was a response to that flaw. The report in fact recommended stiffer standards for obtaining warrants, fixed time limits on the life of warrants and provisions to eliminate the potential for judge-shopping. The Solicitor General referred to that this morning.
The committee did not make any suggestions, however, regarding the tremendous power the force was to be granted. The report of the Senate committee dealt with this particular issue in one or two paragraphs. I believe this is an area that we in the House of Commons should carefully scrutinize. Indeed, the chairman of that committee, Senator Pitfield, has said himself, notwithstanding the fact that he had completed his responsibility of chairman of that committee, that there are areas that still require serious consideration by the House of Commons. If the chairman of the Senate committee believes that we still must give serious consideration to these matters, I am not one to question that.
With respect to the question of mail opening and access to medical records, the fact is that I want to have an opportunity to look at these items as a member of the committee so we can consider the appropriateness of these legislative proposals.
The Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), who served on that committee, I know .will share my concern even though he is on the government side. He has demonstrated very often his independence and consideration for the rights of civil liberties for Canadians.
February 10, 1984

There was a storm of public controversy over the clause of the Bill that would have provided security service agents with a carte blanche to break the law. In response, the Senate proposed that agents have no more protection in this regard than is granted peace officers under the Criminal Code. That carte blanche provision that I have referred to may have caused a great storm of public controversy, but 1 suggest that it was not the most dangerous clause in a Bill filled with potentially dangerous provisions. That distinction goes to Clause 6 of the Bill which, if enacted, would remove one of the linchpins from our parliamentary system. This deals with ministerial responsibility and the concept of ministerial responsibility. I want to deal with that in relation to the new Bill as well because 1 am not satisfied with that element in connection with this legislation. We must give serious consideration to the element of ministerial responsibility because ministerial responsibility is absolutely fundamental to our system of parliamentary government. It is one of the bedrocks of our democratic system in Canada.
A Minister must be responsible to the House for his actions and the actions of the Government. The original proposal was to remove that particular fundamental principle, which would have allowed an appointed official, the Director of the service, to prevail over the Minister. The Solicitor General would have then been at arm's length from any of the activities of this service. When one sees this legislation as it was proposed, one does not have to wonder too much about why it was received with such universal disdain. If this provision had been enacted, the Solicitor General would have ceased to be responsible for his actions to the elected representatives of the people in the House of Commons. There can be no justification for attempting to include such a provision in any piece of legislation, let alone one this important.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It has been removed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Senate committee recommended a 180-degree turn in this area. In the words of the report, the agency should be an open book to the Minister. There is absolutely no question that that is how it must be. The Minister must have full political responsibility. Accountability must be absolute.
I want to deal with one final item of the proposals that were brought forward by the Minister before I deal with the current revised legislation. According to the original Bill, the Inspector General would review the ongoing operations of the force. In effect, he would be the eyes and ears of the Ministry. As with every other section of the Bill, this provision too was fatally flawed. The individual charged with a review of the day to day operations would not have access to relevant Cabinet documents. The service might have control of such documents and they may well base their operational decisions on them, yet this review mechanism could not see them. It could be, for all intents and purposes, hamstrung. The Senate committee recommended full access to Cabinet documents.
Security Intelligence Service
The Solicitor General, in the current incarnation of the legislation, has chosen not to accept this most important of the Senate recommendations, in my estimation.
This, then, is the gist of the recommendations made by the Senate. The Senate considered them carefully and in some detail. In so doing, the depth of general opposition could be fathomed. Whenever I see the Deputy Leader of the Senate on the government side, Senator Royce Frith, arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder with opposition critics, and when I see Liberal Senators castigating the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister with respect to this legislation, I know we have a problem. You do not have to take it from me, Mr. Speaker, even if you regard me as being partisan; when I see Liberals concerned with respect to the thrusts and the initiatives that have been taken, I know there must be something rotten in the state of Denmark, Canada. Everyone from Senator Pitfield on down were opposed to the legislation. It is impossible to find anyone except the Solicitor General and the Prime Minister who will say anything good about it. As a matter of fact, it is becoming more and more obvious that this must be the personal project of these two individuals. There is no one else sitting on that side of the House who will come close to admitting that they support the Bill.


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 do.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Minister promised then to deal with the matter in an urgent and expeditious manner as soon as he received the report. We had first heard it was going to be December 1, 1983; then it was moved over until just before Christmas, and subsequently we now have the Bill before us today. I said in response on behalf of my Party that there are a number of items that have caused us the most serious of concerns. We in this Party are not able to support the legislation in its present form.
I want to give you some ideas, Mr. Speaker, because it is a complex piece of legislation and a complex Bill. I want to deal with some of the general themes that run through the Bill and some of the principles that I think should be contained in this legislation. I have alluded to some of them already in the course of my remarks today.
I want to say to the Solicitor General that we regard this legislation as important. We take our responsibilities seriously. We want to give this matter proper and responsible attention. In at least three critical areas, that is mandate, powers and accountability, there remain serious deficiencies in this legislation.
Let me begin with the first of those areas, the problem of how the force's mandate should be defined. Surely this is a key area, one that should have been given the utmost consideration. If we grant such enormous powers to an agency that operates outside the normal channels of public scrutiny, we must be clear, precise and unambiguous in setting forth what they are to do. This Bill fails to do that. Instead of resolving the problems surrounding this issue, it falls short of the mark

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
of giving the precision of law that is absolutely necessary in this type of legislation.
I want to give some examples of definition and of what constitute threats to the security of Canada. The word "espionage" is used; it is a key part of the definition. You can target someone who is engaging in espionage that is against Canada. But what does it mean?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is in the Criminal Code.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: If you check the dictionary, Mr. Speaker, you will find it means spying. But if you look at the Official Secrets Act, you will find that spying means just about anything you want it to mean. This does not make any sense at all.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Move your amendment.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why not say to the Minister: "We require precise and specific definition with respect to these activities in the mandate of the force?" The same section in another part of the Bill has the same problem. It leads to a preposterous conclusion. It says, in effect, a Canadian citizen who supports the aims and activities of, for example, the Afghan rebels is a threat to the security of Canada. If the Minister will look at the provisions in terms of threats to the security of Canada, subclause (c), and if he follows that definition through, he will find that any person in Canada who supports any group or agency in a foreign state that is opposed to a tyrannical regime becomes, by that definition, a threat to the security of Canada. Does that mean that if we in this House support the existence of "Solidarity" in Poland, the trade labour movement, that we are suddenly, by virtue of the fact that there are incidents of violence that have occurred with respect to martial law, which the Prime Minister of this country has endorsed in that country, becoming threats to the security of Canada?


Mr. Cullen:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Are groups which support the Sandanista rebels a threat? I say the wording is still too vague. That has still to be thought out and given the kind of consideration that we say is required.
This is a very serious issue. There has been criticism already with respect to each of the definitions of what constitutes a threat to the security of Canada by such groups as the provincial attorneys-general, who say it is vague and unspecific. What about the definition:
-(b) foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person-
I think we have to look at these definitions to make sure what we are getting into as far as the powers of this particular agency are concerned. That subclause is unacceptable to me and my colleagues in this Party.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Did you bring your proposed amendments with you today? Let us have your proposed amendments.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I say it is unacceptable to the people of Canada, we are going to take our responsibilities seriously. We are going to help the Solicitor General because, God knows, he needs help, I can tell you that. Watching him operate over the course of the last few years, I do not often agree with the Prime Minister, but when the Prime Minister referred to the Solicitor General as politically naive, for once the Prime Minister knew what he was talking about.
This piece of legislation grants enormous powers to the agency once a warrant for inclusive surveillance is granted. In this respect it does not differ from its predecessor. If passed, there would be no limit on the portions of a person's life and history that could be delved into. Mail could be opened and copied. Access would be available to all sorts of confidential files, from psychiatric reports to income returns. There would be a right to eavesdrop and wiretap.
The question that has to be raised is: Are all these powers necessary in every instance? Is there a need for such a wide range of extraordinary powers? Representatives of the people of Canada are entitled to have unequivocally, information with respect to this matter in order to pass judgment on it and make sure that the legislation is precise and clear. These are questions that deserve serious and sober consideration. They should not be dealt wiht glibly and without proper reflection. Surely in deciding powers of this magnitude, we should take all the care that is necessary to ensure that we provide the force with the powers that are essential for it to fulfil its functions. At the same time, we should be diligent in making sure that those powers do not exceed what is necessary.
It is interesting to note that the new Bill differs in this area in one substantial way from its predecessor. It exempts information submitted under the Statistics Act from the scrutiny of the service. This is not recommended by the Senate committee, but all of a sudden information under the Statistics Act is exempted from the scrutiny of this new security agency. It leads one to wonder what is the basis for it. Why this one exception to the situation where the people of Canada are obliged by law, under penalty of fine or indeed imprisonment, to complete census reports? People also have to fill out income tax returns by law. They have to complete a number of returns by law. Is that the theme or the principle that is running through this legislation? These questions have to be answered. Why only the Statistics Act? The Minister, I think, will understand if Members of Parliament are curious as to what the theoretical or philosophical basis is of that particular provision.
As 1 mentioned earlier, the absence of full ministerial accountability in the earlier Bill was absolutely unacceptable. The Solicitor General has in his latest incarnation adopted some of the Senate recommendations in this regard. I submit he has given only part of the answer with respect to the whole question of ministerial responsibility.
The truth of the matter is that neither the Inspector General nor any review committee under this legislation will have
February 10, 1984

access to Cabinet documents in the control of this service. This means that the Minister and the Government can effectively hide behind Cabinet documents and in that way escape full accountability for their actions. Until there is full access to such documents, there cannot be full review. Without full review, there cannot be complete accountability.
I remind the Flouse that we are here today because of the fact that over the course of the last decade the Government refused to accept any semblance or scintilla of ministerial responsibility with respect to its activities. We are precluded by virtue of the exclusion under freedom of information or any other legislation to look at the documents and gain any assessment of the pressures put on the security service to produce the goods regardless of the tactics used.
It is inconceivable that a Cabinet could sit around and be oblivious to what was going on, with what was happening and the kind of information it demanded from the security service of the RCMP in the early 1970s. There is no question in my mind that the Government and the Prime Minister put the finger on the security service to get the goods on the FLQ. When we do not have access to Cabinet documents, accountability in this country is a very pale shadow of the standard one would expect in a free and democratic society.
I could speak continuously about specific provisions of the legislation. They are woolly; they are not precise. There are certain principles for which we in the Progressive Conservative Party stand. One is that government under the rule of law is absolutely fundamental and essential in a free and democratic society. We in the Progressive Conservative Party have been concerned about the activities that have taken place. In terms of this legislation we understand that we have an awesome responsibility as the Opposition, because the Minister has stated on the floor of the House that he is prepared to put through this Bill as perfection in its present form. I am not alone in terms of my apprehension and concern with respect to this legislation. This is why I said on behalf of my Party that there are a number of reasons, which we will be able to examine during the course of this debate and during the course of committee hearings, why this legislation in its present from is unacceptable to us.
We want to be reasonable and to take our responsibilities seriously, but different signals are coming from the Government side. In conclusion, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), had the following to say about Bill C-9:
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, 1 guess, win an election with the passage of that kind of a Bill.
He continued:
So 1 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.
As a member of the Opposition, I have a responsibility in our parliamentary system, as do my colleagues, to give careful scrutiny to legislation which comes before us to ensure that the
Security Intelligence Service
rights and liberties of individual Canadians are fully protected. We intend to carry out that responsibility and to become involved as Members of Parliament to ensure that the right balance between national security and the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society will be achieved. We in the Progressive Conservative Party can settle for nothing less.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise today to take part in the debate on what is undoubtedly one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this Parliament. The Senate committee, in examining the predecessor Bill, Bill C-157, referred to a delicate balance between on the one hand the security interests of the nation and on the other hand the fundamental civil liberties and rights of all Canadians. In examining the provisions of Bill C-9 which is presently being debated in the House, I believe that we must carefully question whether or not that delicate balance has in fact been achieved. Having reviewed the provisions of the legislation, not using as a yardstick the previous Bill or even the Senate committee report, but using the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and the basic standard which must be applied out of respect for civil liberties, it would be my submission that this Bill falls short of the minimum standards in this essential area.
Previous speakers have given some background of how we arrive at this position today. Not many people would have expected, when Corporal Robert Samson blurted out in a Quebec courtroom in 1976 that he knew of a few activities by the security service in which perhaps the Canadian people might be interested, what kind of Pandora's box he in fact was opening. As a result of the events which flowed from that outburst in a Quebec court, Hon. Members will know that the government of the day appointed the McDonald Commission in July, 1977 to conduct a comprehensive review of all aspects of security legislation in Canada, in particular to examine those activities which were not authorized by law.
The McDonald Commission held extensive hearings, heard from a broad cross-section of the community and from many different witnesses, and issued its report to the Government. In August, 1981 the Government responded to the recommendations of the McDonald Commission by saying that it was prepared to accept the fundamental recommendation of a civilian security service, that is, separation of the security service from the RCMP. However, in what was at the time certainly viewed by many as a monumental act of arrogance, the Government rejected the central underpinnings of the McDonald Commission report. It went so far as to obtain a second legal opinion, an opinion written by former Supreme Court Justice Spence and Toronto lawyer, Robert Wright, which effectively discarded the reasoning of the McDonald Commission. Certainly that was an immediate cause for concern to those of us who recognized our responsibility to move forward with changes in this area but not at the price of civil liberties.

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Despite the widespread evidence of institutionalized wrongdoing, which was clearly documented in the report of the McDonald Commission, despite the evidence of wilful blindness on the part not only of senior members of the RCMP security service but, more important, their political masters, it is important to look at the record of what has taken place as a result of those revelations.
According to the report of the McDonald Commission, it found a willingness on the part of members of the RCMP to deceive those outside the force who had some sort of constitutional authority or jurisdiction over them or their activities. The McDonald Commission documented a series of wrongdoings and criminal activity, whether it be arson, theft, breaking and entering, kidnapping, illegal opening of mail, illegal access to government records, and unfortunately the list went on and on. As the Commission noted as well, one of the most reprehensible kinds of wrongdoing carried out by the RCMP was the wide range of illegal and improper acts carried out by the security service to disrupt radical political groups in Canada suspected of being threats to national security. Most of these activities were carried out in the early 1970s, following at least the tacit urgings of the government of the day to crack down on this kind of activity even though it was entirely legal.
I think it is important in establishing a historic context to remind Canadians of what it was that led us to this particular legislation. The McDonald Commission said:
These methods violated the rule of law, inflicted damage on Canadian citizens and involved secret attempts to manipulate political events and the news media. Such practices not only violate important precepts of Canadian democracy but they may also seriously damage the security agency itself.
It concluded by saying:
Approval of such tactics will reduce the public support for any kind of secret security intelligence activities.
What was the response of those who are constitutionally obliged to uphold the law in this country, to ensure that the principle of the rule of law which is now entrenched in the preamble to our Constitution is upheld? To this date there has not been a single prosecution of any breach of federal statute by the Government of Canada. The Government has decided that despite clear and compelling evidence of breaches of a number of statutes, whether it be the Income Tax Act, the Post Office Act or the Unemployment Insurance Act, there was to be no prosecution whatsoever for the breaches of those federal statutes.
At the provincial level, in the four provinces in which there was evidence of criminal wrong-doing-British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec-it was only in the Province of Quebec and only following the report of the Keable Commission that the Attorney General of Quebec laid charges for the very serious breaches of the Criminal Code in that province. To this date it remains, and I put it at its most charitable, unclear as to whether there has been any disciplinary action taken within the RCMP security service as a result of the very
clear breaches of the standards which must be upheld by a security service in a democratic society.
In August, 1973 the then Minister of Justice stated clearly and unequivocally that there was to be no disciplinary action whatsoever against any member of the RCMP security service for the breaches of the law and the breaches of the standards of the force, which were so clearly documented by the McDonald Commission. Just last week we heard from the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) the suggestion that in fact there was disciplinary action taken, but he was not going to tell us the nature of the disciplinary action, who it was taken against, when it was taken or why. Effectively what he said was, "Disregard the statement of the Minister of Justice who said there was to be no disciplinary action and trust me when I tell you that we have disciplined those who should be disciplined, but I am not going to tell you how or when".
What does that do to the rule of law? What does it do in terms of a deterrent to other members of the force who may be tempted in similar circumstances to breach the high standard of ethics of the security service? As I said, there has been no disciplinary action and certainly no prosecution whatsoever. In fact, they have made a mockery of the rule of law in this country.
There are 800,000 Canadians who have had files opened on them. According to the report of the McDonald Commission, the vast majority of those Canadians had committed no illegality whatsoever, yet we still do not know how many of those files are being destroyed or even the extent to which Canadians are being informed of the existence of such files or how they were used against them.
For almost two years the Government pondered and studied the recommendations of the McDonald Commission and somewhat ironically set up a transition force, whose chief policy adviser was one of the senior members of the RCMP security service who had first called for the establishment of the McDonald Commission. These deliberations finally gave birth to Bill C-157, tabled in May, 1983. This legislation constitutes a massive and unprecedented assault on the civil liberties of all Canadians. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) pointed out that it was denounced across Canada by a broad cross-section of the community, whether it be provincial attorneys general, academics, civil libertarians, trade unionists and many others. However, when the official spokesperson for the Conservative Party stated that Bill C-157 met with universal disapproval and when he said that it was recognized at the time as being totally wrong, there was one slight omission from his speech. There was one very important group in this country that remained totally silent on this affront to civil liberties. One group refused to speak out, one group which sat silently as provincial attorneys general, civil libertarians and a broad cross-section condemned this Bill. The group that remained silent and in derogation of its responsibility to the people of this country was none other than the Conservative Party.
I challenge the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and his colleagues, the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland
February 10, 1984

(Mr. Lawrence) and others who are now saying what a terrible thing Bill C-157 was, and it was, and what an assault it was on civil liberties. I ask those great defenders of civil liberties, where were they in May, June, July, August, right on through until January? They kept their heads in the sand and refused to take a stand. When the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West piously stands up and suggests that-


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to the Hon. Member's question, I was in Toronto speaking against the Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. Members should not interrupt the Hon. Member who has been recognized to make a speech.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again I am pleased to see the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West. I am sure he will want to clarify the record if indeed he has taken a stand on behalf of his Party, or if the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland, who I believe was the critic, took a stand. Certainly I would be delighted to see the House enlightened as to the position that they took.
That silence was broken on one occasion by Elmer MacKay, the former Member for Central Nova, a couple of days after the Bill was tabled. First, he strongly supported the establishment of a civilian security service. He went on to say that in his view, Bill C-157 probably contained too many civil liberty safeguards which would hamper the work of the new security service. I should not have suggested that the Tory caucus was totally silent. 1 should have made reference to the remarks of the former Hon. Member for Central Nova. However, at a time when the Conservative Party had an obligation to speak out forcefully on civil liberties it remained shamefully silent. I remind Members of this House that that Member is now the senior policy adviser to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney).
There were serious flaws in Bill C-157. The Solicitor General who brought that Bill forward heralded it as a great new innovation, a profound contribution to the strengthening of civil liberties of all Canadians. Of course, we know better. I am not going to take the time of the House to analyse in detail the deficiencies of that legislation. That has been done on a number of occasions, not in this House, but in forums across this country. The provisions of that Bill would have allowed the new security service, for example, under Clause 21 effective carte blanche to break any law, federal or provincial in this land. There were provisions in Clause 12 of the Bill which imposed, effectively, a media gag, a gag on the reporting of anything relating to the security service, even illegalities. There were provisions in Clause 2 of Bill C-157 which suggested that my colleague and friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), could have had his mail opened, because of the threat to the security of Canada, for suggesting that we abolish the Senate. What kind of Bill was it which had provisions, Mr. Speaker, which would have allowed the director of that security service to tell the Solicitor General to get lost if the Solicitor General felt it was inappropriate for a particular group to be targeted? That is the kind of legisla-
Security Intelligence Service
tion which the Solicitor General brought forward at the time, the Solicitor General who remains, by some miracle, within the Cabinet and continues to bring it forward.
Bill C-157 was sent off to a Senate committee, chaired by Senator Pitfield who, interestingly enough, was one of the key advisers to the Government in its response to the report of the McDonald Commission. That Senate committee thoroughly studied the provisions of Bill C-157 and made a number of recommendations for improving that legislation, although it adopted the essential principles of the Bill. I should note as well that although this legislation meets some criticisms of the Pitfield committee, there are a number of important criticisms which were made by that committee which have not in fact been addressed. I should note as well that despite the scathing criticisms-which I certainly share-from the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West with respect to a number of provisions of Bill C-9, once again there would appear to be a double standard because the recommendations of the Pitfield committee, which formed the basis for this Bill-with one or two glaring exceptions-were recommendations based upon a unanimous report of the Senate committee. In other words, what the Conservative Party unanimously supported in the other place, it attacks in the House. It is not easy to follow that kind of logic.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the provisions of Bill C-9 itself and point to what we in this Party consider to be a number of very serious inadequacies in this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I must say Bill C-9 is still entirely unacceptable to the NDP. 1 do not think the Bill provides for that essential balance between the protection of individual rights and national security. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is going to be a Canadian version of the CIA in the United States, with all the powers of that Agency and the possibility of abusing those powers. For instance, the Service will be given extensive powers such as opening First class mail and access to confidential tax and medical files, for instance.
Despite the improvements in this new version of the Bill, we believe it still constitutes an affront to the civil liberties of all Canadians.

There are three or four fundamental areas in this legislation which 1 would like to deal with. I would like to point out some of our broader areas of concern without dealing in detail, of course, at this second reading stage with the provisions of the Bill. It is important to examine carefully the proposed scope of this legislation. Under the terms of Bill C-9 there are three primary activities of the new security service. First, the security service would have the ability to monitor effectively and provide intelligence on what are defined as "threats to the security of Canada". Second, the security service would have

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
the power to provide security assessments for the work of the federal Government. Third, in one of the provisions, which has been largely overlooked by the media, the security service would in effect have the right to operate in an area which has nothing whatsoever to do with national security. This has been in fact acknowledged by the Solicitor General in his testimony before the Senate committee. I am speaking now, Mr. Speaker, of the area of providing knowledge and information which might assist Canada in the conduct of external affairs. That has nothing whatsoever to do with national security. I will come back in a moment to deal with some of the very serious threats which are posed by this Bill under that particular heading.
In dealing with the proposed mandate of the security service with respect to threats to the security of Canada, I note that the definition which is contained in Bill C-9 is still significantly broader in a number of ways than that which was recommended by the McDonald Commission. Certainly there has been an improvement of Bill C-157 in Bill C-9. However, it remains a fact that Canadians who have broken no law whatsoever, but fall within the very sweeping mandate of this Bill, are subject to the intrusive powers which are set out in the legislation. The mandate has been denounced by such people as Attorney General Roy McMurtry, as being dangerously vague. That comes from one who is not known in this country as being a particularly strong defender of civil liberties. It is still the case, Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of this Bill, that a church group, trade union movement or any other organization which chooses to send funds to the African National Congress in southern Africa to support that country's liberation group which is in opposition to a system which is inherently violent, or to a Central American liberation movement, or, for that matter, to Afghan rebels, could have its membership targeted and all the intrusive techniques in this Bill could be used against it. Cruise missile protesters could possibly be targeted under the provisions of subsection (b) in this proposed legislation, if some over-zealous director felt they came under the influence of some foreign power. We need only look south of the border to see there has been some suggestion of that.
In defining the potential targets of this proposed legislation, surely we should be as careful as possible to ensure that we are dealing with legitimate threats to national security, whether it be espionage or terrorism, as is carefully and properly defined because, Mr. Speaker, we have seen all too often that where there exists the possibility for abuse in the surveillance of innocent Canadians, unfortunately that possibility will be taken advantage of. The security service opened files on over 800,000 law abiding Canadians.
I believe that the potential scope of the legislation, in terms of its potential targets, remains far too broad. However, in many ways the heart and guts of this Bill and the most important element of the Bill are the powers which are accorded to the new security service. It is in this area of the powers, which we are being asked as a Parliament to grant to this body-which will not remain accountable to a parliamentary
committee-that I believe the greatest danger lies. It is in this area, Mr. Speaker, that the new civilian security service is being given powers far beyond those which are possessed by the present security service within the RCMP. The new security service would have the power literally to break into any place, anywhere in Canada. That would apply whether it be MPs' offices, doctors' offices, government offices-in fact, they would not have to break into government offices under the Bill because they would have access to those records as a matter of right-or into one's home. No place is sacred under the legislation.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: With a judicial warrant.


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Government would have access to literally all government records-I am sorry, the security service would have access to all government records, whether they be family allowance records, unemployment insurance files, income tax records, you name it. There would be carte blanche access to government records under the provisions of the legislation. As well, it would have access to all private records, medical records, phychiatric records, records of a lawyer, records of a clergyman, upon application to a federal court judge and upon the issuance of a warrant. Nothing is sacred.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: There is an important safeguard.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Statistics Canada managed to obtain an exemption of the census records but beyond that, all records are subject to the scrutiny of the new security service.
What did the McDonald Commission have to say about the availability of records to the security service? It said that the security service should not be able to use any intrusive technique against Canadians who are suspected of engaging in subversive activities. It suggested that in dealing with those who are suspected of espionage or those who are suspected of terrorism, some intrusive techniques may be appropriate. It said very clearly that no intrusive technique, be it mail opening, be it access to government records, be it wiretapping, must be used against Canadians who are suspected of subversive activity. The Bill rejects entirely that fundamental recommendation and makes everyone the subject of these intrusive techniques.
The Solicitor General asks about the availability of a warrant. He says that they have to get a warrant. Certainly they have to get a warrant, just as the police forces today have to obtain warrants for wiretapping. If one looks at the statistics of applications under the provisions of the Criminal Code, one will find that over the last four years, out of a total of 2,000 or 3,000 applications, perhaps 15 or 16 have been rejected. What kind of safeguard is it when dealing with intrusive techniques to suggest that a federal court judge is going to act as a vetting device?


James Douglas Manly: Dial a judge.
February 10, 1984


Svend Johannes Robinson: Dial a judge, as my colleague suggests. Certainly that is totally inadequate as a safeguard.
The Pitfield committee recommended that before any warrant is issued for the use of intrusive powers, a federal court judge should be required to balance the invasion of privacy, on the one hand, against the information which might be obtained through the use of intrusive powers, on the other. That important recommendation was rejected out of hand by the Government in Bill C-9.
The requirement for some safeguards in the placement of informers, which is surely one of the most chilling and intrusive techniques, is absent from the legislation.
The final major area of the Bill is the question of oversight and review. The Bill falls far short of what the minimal standards must be for proper oversight and accountability. There is an Inspector General and a Security Intelligence Review Committee, but both bodies are denied access to cabinet documents already in the possession of the security service itself.
As Professor Peter Russell said, the sheer arrogance of this provision is simply numbing. We must bear in mind that the Cabinet documents, with which we are saying we are not going to trust the Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, are already in the possession of the security service. The people who we are being told are not trustworthy to deal with them are Privy Councillors appointed by the Government of the day. That makes a mockery of effective oversight.
The recommendation of the McDonald Commission for a parliamentary committee is essential if Canadians are to have confidence in the operation of a civilian security service, or any security service for that matter. Such a body has been proven to be effective in the United States and in West Germany. I suggest that a similar body is absolutely essential here. The McDonald Commission made it very clear in its report that in granting the sweeping powers it proposed-and I emphasize that the Bill goes far beyond the McDonald Commission and the powers it would propose-all of these parliamentary committees in the examples it used indicate a democratic desire to subject secret state intelligence activities to review by persons associated with the democratic critics of the Party in power. It is this fundamental recommendation that the Bill would totally ignore.
Another area must be addressed, Mr. Speaker, and that is the potential for abuse through the sharing of information obtained by the new security service with agencies in other countries. At one point the Solicitor General indicated that the present security service exchanges information with agencies in other countries. How can we possibly grant to a new security service the power to obtain sweeping access to information on the privacy of Canadians when we know that this information may end up in the hands of security agencies in other countries which are subject to no scrutiny whatsoever?
I mentioned the provisions of the legislation which would permit intrusive powers to be used against individuals who
Security Intelligence Service
may have information which would assist in the conduct of the external affairs of Canada with no threat to national security whatsoever. A student group, an ethnic group, a foreign professor who may have information that is of assistance to the Department of External Affairs could have their mail opened, their telephones bugged and all other intrusive techniques used against them. In a democratic society surely a provision of that nature is completely unacceptable.
In three essential areas this Bill is completely deficient, that is, with respect to the potential mandate of the new security service, with respect to the enormous powers which might be used by the service, and with respect to the very question of oversight and parliamentary accountability.
It is most appropriate that the Bill is being debated in 1984, Mr. Speaker; it is most appropriate because it would be ironic if, in seeking to achieve the objective of guarding in Canada against totalitarian influences, we should adopt the very tools of those totalitarian governments themselves. Surely that would be the ultimate irony.
I suggest that the Bill in its present form constitutes a very serious threat to the civil liberties of all Canadians. It constitutes, in effect, an unwarranted invasion into the privacy of Canadians. We in this Party will do everything in our power to prevent the legislation, which constitutes such an affront to civil liberties, from being enacted.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alain Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take part in the debate this afternoon. First, however, 1 would like to say that the Opposition has been making remarks, criticisms and comments which unfortunately, in my own humble opinion, are more specifically concerned with the former version of the Bill. I may remind the House, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-9 is entirely different from the first version, known as Bill C-157. In fact, the objective of over forty amendments made to Bill C-157 was as follows: to restrict the mandate of the Security Service. We also wanted to strengthen ministerial control and ministerial responsibility for the actions of the Security Service. Conditions for the approval and use of investigation techniques were to be more stringent. Furthermore, the amendments confirmed clearly that Security Intelligence Service operations were to observe the law in every respect. Provisions concerning surveillance and the examination of third parties were to be clarified and reinforced. There was also to be a re-affirmation of the powers of provincial Attorneys General to prosecute security offenses, while leaving the federal authority sufficient powers to intervene in the interests of national security. Mr. Speaker, I would say that the new version we are discussing today in the House has achieved these objectives and, for all practical purposes, reflects all of the major criticisms which were reasonable, up to a point, since the Government took the trouble to table a new Bill, as Bill C-9.

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
As the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) pointed out in his speech this morning, this Bill represents a major turning point for the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. The Bill was drafted with two major objectives in mind, the first being to provide a legal framework for the Security Service and the second, as important as the first, to strike a just and pragmatic balance between the protection of our national security and of civil liberties. About fifteen years ago, Mr. Speaker, the members of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Security, Maxwell McKenzie, Yves Pratt and the Hon. H. J. Caldwell, stated the following in the Commission's report: The need for security practices exists mainly because the State has a duty to protect its information, institutions and policies against espionage, indiscretion, subversion and clandestine interference. History has shown that there have always been attempts at espionage, subversion and clandestine interference. In fact, such activities are going on at the present time, successfully or unsuccessfully, and they will probably continue in some way or other as long as international relations are based on the existence of sovereign states.
Twelve years later, the McDonald Commission, at the very beginning of its report, mentioned the same dangers described by the McKenzie Commission. In referring to activities of foreign agents, the McDonald Commission stated the following: These activities have not diminished, even though our country has not been at war for years and despite the lessening of international tension as a result of what the more optimistic among us call East-West Detente. In fact, in recent years the number of foreign intelligence organizations has not only increased but more and more, attempts are being made to use them against Canada, both for obtaining information and influencing our policies.
Over the past fifteen years or so, the issue of Canada's requirements for intelligence services have led to numerous and detailed studies as well as public debates which have kept the Canadian people and the Government increasingly aware of the ever growing complexity of threats to our country's security. The reports of the two royal Commissions to which I referred a moment ago have highlighted the painful but undeniable reality of life within the contemporary international community.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to deal specifically with two subjects: first, international terrorism and, second, the so-called transfers of technology. Those two subjects stand as evidence of the increasing complexity of threats against intelligence services, and of the need for security organizations to respond with much more sophisticated and especially much more effective means.
Quite obviously, the technological explosion of the last thirty years has had a tremendous impact on the standard of living of western nations. As all Hon. Members know, we can see that in our daily lives; our defence capabilities and those of our
NATO allies are increasingly dependent upon our technological skills.
Despite the many restrictions imposed on the exportation of those skills, much of our know-how has been acquired by East Bloc countries where it is used almost exclusively for military purposes.
Indeed, a number of articles and books have been published recently on that subject. For instance, I might mention The Falcon and the Snowman which explains in detail the methods used to make those clearly illegal transfers of technology. We have heard about many cases of such activities in recent years and, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will mention a few.
First of all, I would remind the House that a Soviet trade representative was expelled from Canada in 1982 because he had secretly offered to a Canadian businessman a huge amount of money to buy restricted technology data in the field of optic fibres, saying that he would have no problems with Canadian export regulations.
Here is a second example. Three Soviet intelligence officers used Canada as a safe meeting place to obtain from an American engineer top secret information on military facilities in the United States. To accomplish their mission, they resorted to every imaginable traditional spying procedures and devices. Those agents were also thrown out of Canada.
And finally, a third example. As recently as last September, two Soviet diplomats based in Montreal were declared personae non gratae for attempting to obtain top secret high technology.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, those three extremely telling examples prove beyond the shadow of a doubt to what extent our secret technology is vulnerable and must be protected. They also indicate just how urgent it is to take action.
The second issue I wish to address is that of international terrorism, and in the introduction to its discussion on this threat to Canadian security, this same McDonald Commission wrote that the internationalization of terrorist activities since the end of the sixties has considerably increased this threat to Canada's security. It is interesting to note that the Royal Commission on Security did not even mention this threat in its 1968 report. It would be most presumptuous to predict the possible disappearance of the terrorist threat, because political fanaticism, instead of being on the decrease, is gaining in strength, and, unfortunately, modern technology often provides small groups of individuals with the means to threaten whole populations. Protection against terrorism will remain for a long time to come and without any doubt one of the major objectives of security measures. Throughout the world, the incidence of terrorist activities has increased dramatically in recent years. Like many other countries, Canada has had its own experience. For instance, Armenian terrorists have claimed responsibility for four bomb attacks, two extortion attempts and two assassination attempts aimed at Turkish
February 10, 1984

diplomats in Ottawa, one of which unfortunately did succeed, as everyone will recall.
According to Senator Arthur J. Golberg, former U.S. Supreme Court Justice, the threat of modern terrorism goes beyond national boundaries and the interests of sovereign states. He goes even further by stating the following:
This outbreak of threats and sacrifices in human lives jeopardizes both the growth and the operation of our system of international law. Indeed, modern terrorism, which now has at its disposal highly sophisticated technological means and may one day have access to biological and nuclear weapons, is a positive and real threat to the very existence of civilization.
The McDonald Commission has underlined the fact that modern terrorist groups are continuously improving their methods and have become real experts in the illicit pursuit of political objectives through violent means. This is why the Commission has laid so much emphasis on the need to collect factual information long before the evidence required to lay charges can be obtained, in other words, before acts of violence are committed and the police forces concerned are called in. Bill C-9 takes this fact into account and provides for an effective mechanism to counter the terrorist threat which is on the rise, even in Canada.
Before closing, I would like to mention another aspect of the debate on security intelligence which is the urgency of passing legislation. The Bill introduced in the House provides for the tools which will allow us to fight effectively against the ever increasing threats against Canada's security, including the two provisions which I briefly explained earlier. We must act now. The world of espionage, terrorism and subversion is not a static one; it evolves and gets more proficient even now as we are discussing the problems it creates and the methods by which we could protect ourselves against its attacks. This is why, Mr. Speaker, the Special Senate Committee stresses in its report the extreme urgency of passing security legislation. In doing so, it has joined the increasing number of security intelligence experts and enlightened observers who are urging us to pass legislation and pressing us to safeguard the interests of our country in the area of security. Bill C-9 meets this very vital need. Furthermore, it does so in a way designed to ensure at the same time complete respect and protection under the law of the basic rights and freedoms of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I will say that it is obvious and generally admitted by all those who critized former Bill C-157 that Bill C-9 is an extremely innovative measure, a very good piece of legislation and something which should not be critized or questioned on grounds which, in some cases, might have been valid under the old formula, but which no longer stand.
Hopefully, the Opposition will aim its critics at suggesting other improvements. However, I would remind the House that Bill C-9 as reworded meets all the major concerns.
Security Intelligence Service


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Member who just spoke a question with respect to his defence of this legislation as being a significant improvement over the previous Bill, and in particular a response to the recommendations of the Pitfield committee. The Pitfield committee strongly recommended that the security service oversight body, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, and the Inspector General, should have full access to all documents in the possession of the security service itself. Despite that strong recommendation, the Government, in Bill C-9, has refused to accept that recommendation. We are left with the incredible provision that even though the security service has access to certain broadly defined Cabinet documents, the body which is responsible in the legislation for their overview is denied access to those same documents. How can the Parliamentary Secretary defend that particular provision of the Bill and the decision of the Government to ignore that fundamental recommendation of the Pitfield committee?


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned earlier in my statement, Bill C-157 received a number of amendments, I even said earlier there were some 40 of them. Clearly, if we use the previous wording to focus on a specific situation, one may find ourself with an insatisfactory answer. However, I would suggest to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that looking at the new version, Bill C-9, we find a significant number of provisions through which all security measures are made much more flexible, open and consultative.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might now wish to answer the question. The specific question was; why was the Pitfield committee's fundamental recommendation that the overview committee should have access to all documents in the possession of the security service, including Cabinet documents, rejected?


Alain Tardif: The answer is quite simple, Mr. Speaker. The Government did not deem fit to act on that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question in another area. Under the provisions of this legislation the new civilian security service would be entitled to exchange information which it obtained through the use of its intrusive techniques with secret security agencies of other countries. Given the fact that the new security agency will have sweeping access to a whole series of confidential information about Canadians, is the Government prepared to indicate precisely with which agencies of foreign countries it is going to be sharing this information?

February 10, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, clearly I cannot speak on behalf of the Government. But as far as I am concerned, this is a matter to be settled by the Consultative Committee which, on the basis of circumstances, will decide whether or not such information should be made public.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might in fact answer the question. It is a very straightforward question. Is the Government going to be making public the names of those agencies of other countries with which the security service will be exchanging information?
[ Translation]


Alain Tardif: I don't believe so, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, he does not believe so. In other words, Canadians are going to have intrusive techniques used against them and information is going to be given to unnamed agencies in unnamed countries.
My final question concerns a very important issue. Following up on the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) indicated that no disciplinary action whatsoever had been taken against members of the security service for the wrongdoings and breaches of the law which were identified in the report of the McDonald Commission. The Solicitor General has said that disciplinary action had been taken. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary, which one is accurate?


Alain Tardif: As far as I am concerned, may I indicate to the House that to my knowledge, there are some ten cases where proceedings were instituted in Quebec.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I was not referring, of course, to criminal prosecution. I was referring specifically to disciplinary action taken within the RCMP security service.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary now indicating that in fact disciplinary action as opposed to criminal prosecution has been launched against any members of the security service?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair may not have listened as attentively as it normally does to the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary's speech, but under the provisional rules of the House which allow for this period of questions and comments, questions should relate strictly to the comments raised in the course of the Hon. Member's speech and should not introduce new elements. As I say, I give the benefit of the doubt to the Hon. Member and will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to respond if he so pleases.


Alain Tardif: In response to the last question, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Solicitor General did indeed answer to that, namely that proper steps have been taken concerning disciplinary action.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise as a second member of this Party to debate Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
Before I begin my remarks I have one or two comments to make respecting the speech made by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It is always interesting to listen to him because he was trying to allude to the fact that this Party was somehow not defending the interests of Canadians. Yet 1 personally know that our Members were out across the country speaking against Bill C-157. But that Hon. Member was right out of the saddle immediately, so much so that he was kicked out of the justice portfolio by his Leader. He was actually denounced by his Leader and put on the back-benches. Of course, he was denounced by his Party.
With respect to the divorce legislation, he was up in a flash agreeing with another government Bill on divorce, only two weeks later to find that once again he was repudiated by his Party since they are actually opposed to the Bill, having followed the Conservative Party.
When he talks about those states which interfere with people's rights and how the NDP will protect people's rights, I ask him, who has violated people's rights more than the socialist countries in the world? Who is the vice-president of the Socialist International? His own grand, glorious Leader. What a shame it is.
I believe that we should never forget the history behind this legislation. I think there is no doubt that Canadians have been concerned about this issue for many years. Royal commissions, which began their work 15 years ago, said that we needed to have a civilian security service or one that was isolated from the RCMP.
This ultimately led, some 15 years later, to Bill C-157. That Bill was so defective, in spite of the fact that the Government had been addressing this issue for 15 years, that it did not even dare bring it up for debate on second reading. Following first reading of the Bill, broad segments of the country, after a cursory examination, raised such a ruckus that the Government had to defuse the situation. It did so by referring the matter to a Senate committee, which then made over 40 major changes to the Bill.
While this is a relatively small Bill consisting of some 46 pages only, its effect will change the entire nature of the country over a period of years. I have always been astounded by the thinness of the Bills and the major effect that we as parliamentarians have on the lives and future of our fellow citizens. This is true whether it is a constitutional Bill, the omnibus Criminal Code Bill we are considering or a short Bill such as Bill C-9.
February 10, 1984

I am anxious to hear other Members speak during second reading debate because I believe this is an issue about which we should be non-partisan. It is an occasion when we should be examining the subject matter of this Bill in an honest attempt to do what we believe is best for the country. I am anxious for the Bill to go to committee so that various groups in Canada, such as Alan Borovoy and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, can be heard. When we hear from groups through out Canada we will know what they think about Bill C-9.
While Bill C-9 is substantially different from Bill C-157, it contains many clauses which should concern citizens. It is the fundamental nature of the citizens of our country to believe that we should operate under the rule of law. If I can critize the Government for anything, it would be for its breach of that principle of the rule of law by allowing people's rights to be attacked and thus allowing them to lose the presumption of innocence. We have members in the House who have suffered from that loss of the presumption of innocence by what is almost an innuendo. People are worried about the Bill because we have lost that sense of rule of law.
Another fundamental principle for which we all stand is responsible government. Once again, Canadians are worried because they sense that political partisanship is taking over, primarily because the Liberal Party has been in power so long, because of the nature of its federal Constitution, and because of the lack of autonomy at the riding level of its executive association. Canadians have the sense that Liberal backbenchers are not holding the Cabinet responsible for that tradition of a responsible government. That is why Canadians are worried about this Bill.
The primary concern of Canadians to whom I have talked is that the Liberal Government has been in power for so long that it has lost that sense of ministerial responsibility as it exists in the United Kingdom parliament. In Britain, Callaghan resigned as minister because of a report that came in days or almost weeks ahead of the Falkland Islands' issue. As a man of honour he said that although it was only a small memo, ministerial responsibility required him to step down because the integrity of the British way of life was affected. One has to admire him for resigning.
I can relate several cases where this example has not been followed by Cabinet Ministers in the present Liberal Government. If they had done so, they would not have been greatly hurt and it would have maintained that principle of Canadian law which is ministerial accountability. I believe that is why Canadians are worried about this Bill.
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.
Legal Fees
We must face the question as to whether this Bill is needed at all. Those who are in favour of it support that view by referring to the growth of the intelligence service throughout the world. Since the Second World War there has been the Soviet school of thought and the American school of thought, with the fight between the two philosophies.
May 1 call it four o'clock?


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



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\nAt 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Monday, February 13, 1984']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall all orders and items listed under Private Members' Business preceding Order No. 58, be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to allow the reimbursement, by the government, of all professional fees and other costs incurred by an individual for his defence against any action commenced by the Crown, including by way of indictment or summary conviction and including all appeals, and all other situations where the resources of the Crown caused an individual to incur expenses to defend himself against an action of the Crown:
1.	where an individual is so required to take action under any Act of the
Parliament of Canada and is subsequently found to be right; or
2.	where, following the commencement of proceedings against an individual,
the Crown has dropped the action.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak for a long time because the time for Private Members' debate is rather limited. I hope a few other Members of Parliament will speak to this issue and support it, and I hope that we might finish our debate today in time to move the subject matter to committee so we can commence action in this direction, which is what is indicated.
The thought pattern and the experience which lies behind my decision to bring this motion forward to the Parliament of Canada really arises out of my experience as an elected politician since 1979. As a private citizen, not charged with the responsibility of representing others, I was unaware of the difficulties which we have created in modern Canadian society through what I believe to be the attempt of legislators to do

February 10, 1984
Legal Fees
what is right. We pass in this House of Commons page after page of laws day after day. We have reached a point where the laws of Canada grow in number daily. One of the powers we give to the Cabinet of Canada when we pass a law, and we do it frequently, is the power to make Orders in Council and set regulations. Last year, over 4,000 different regulations of that kind were passed. Then we turn around and we have to hire people to interpret those regulations and in some cases to enforce those laws. People are only human. From time to time some are over-zealous in the interpretation of a regulation. When that happens, quite often there is an enormous stress put on the individual, an enormous psychological cost. Accompanying that there is always financial expense. In many cases that financial expense is massive, sufficient to bankrupt an individual, causing irreparable damage to members of his or her family.
I thought long and hard about what we could do about it. Certainly we cannot eliminate this situation. If we are going to have an orderly society with laws and regulations, then we need to have some system that holds individuals accountable for obeying those laws and regulations. We need in a modern society, given the proliferation of those laws and given the fact that there are well over one-quarter of a million people serving the Government of Canada in the enforcement of those laws, a system where the individual does not suffer what really amounts to a financial fine, not because he did wrong but simply because he was accused of doing wrong.
I did not attempt in this motion to provide taxpayers' dollars to those who have done wrong. I attempted to separate the difference between those who have done wrong and those who are accused of doing wrong. I looked at the recent debates in the House of Commons. We have had a lot of concentration on the tax man. We have talked a lot about reassessments and a lot about appeals. What is happening out there-and I think every Member of Parliament knows it-is that if the tax man comes along and says, "We are reassessing you for $200 more tax, $800 or $1,000 more tax," we encounter individuals who say that that is wrong. We hear people say that that is the wrong interpretation of the tax law. But the bureaucrats say, "If you believe that, appeal". The taxpayer looks at the cost of appealing. It may amount to $5,000 or $50,000, but it is more than the amount of reassessment. It is a pretty normal human reaction to say, "I am right. I would like to prove that I am right. I would like to prove that the tax man 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.
I looked at environmental regulations and I looked at the election law itself. In those two areas action can be taken by civil servants against an individual. The individual can feel he or she is right, but that individual has to judge whether the cost of proving he or she is right outweighs the benefits to be gained by knuckling under. Far too often, I suggest, every Member of the House has encountered case after case after case where individuals knuckled under to a determination
made by a single individual because the cost of proving themselves right far outweighed the benefits to be gained.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is not the way we should be defining Canadian society. If we are going to have big government, if we are going to have rules and regulations, surely the cost to an individual should not commence at the moment of accusation. It can commence at the moment of conviction. If the taxpayer is proved to be wrong, if a person has broken the criminal law, then perhaps that is appropriate. We should not be the victims of an assertion by a single individual in the bureaucracy who says that we have done something wrong. Those rules and regulations run right across the Department of Justice, from licensing, to transportation, to the fisheries.
One of the first things that happened to me as a Member of Parliament concerned regulations and statutory instruments. I looked at a regulation where a fisheries officer could get on a citizen's band radio and say, "As of this moment, the following tackle is illegal to use". The penalties which flow to the individual at that moment in time are immediate confiscation of the equipment and a fine. That is instant law, Mr. Speaker. That is a difficult kind of law for individuals to protect themselves against.
I have seen Customs hold up shipments of such things as crab destined for restaurants on some kind of technicality which the taxpayer ultimately proves should not have happened. It might be a customs officer who got out of the bed that morning on the wrong side. The recipient of that cargo or the shipper pays. Somebody pays. It is not the civil servant, it is not the Crown; an individual pays. I suggest those kinds of things should not be allowed to continue. I suggest we should have a system whereby, when this big thing called the Crown with all of its resources, with all its civil servants, with all its lawyers and with all its financial clout, attacks an individual and the individual is subsequently proved right, we, the taxpayers of the country, collectively have at least the responsibility to reimburse that individual for the costs incurred to defend themselves from the action of the Crown. Today the Government and the individual are like David and Goliath. In most occurrences in Canadian society, David is fined the minute a bureaucrat takes an action, even when the bureaucrat is wrong.
If my motion were to be adopted and we had such a system, we would be able to spot over-zealous bureaucrats if their personal records indicated they had been frequently wrong. They would be costing taxpayers money time after time by making accusations or interpreting regulations in a manner which the lawmakers did not intend or in a manner which was unfair to the individual. Society would be better off with a system of accountability for the tiny minority of bureaucrats or public servants who are over-zealous from time to time and cause difficulties to individuals.
I know other Hon. Members of the House would like to speak to today's motion. As the debate continues this afternoon, I hope they speak positively about it. With their experi-
February 10, 1984

ence as elected representatives, I hope they understand the wisdom of it and the need for it in modern society. 1 sincerely hope that the debate concludes prior to five o'clock so that we can move a motion to have the subject matter referred to committee. We are not prejudging what the committee will decide, but if the subject matter were referred, an investigation could begin as to its principles, the costs in relation to it, and the need for it. Hopefully the committee would report back to Parliament in the not too distant future.
I commend the motion to the House. I sincerely hope it is referred to committee by five o'clock this afternoon so that we can get on with trying to correct something which really needs correcting in modern Canada.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to participate in this debate this afternoon. It is almost a case of deja vu. However, I commend the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) for bringing this particular subject matter to the attention of the House and those people who will follow it on television, read about it in the newspapers or listen to it on the radio. It is an area of concern to more and more Canadians. Certainly it is of concern to more and more of us serving as elected representatives.
In a previous motion not unlike that of the Hon. Member, it was suggested that costs should be charged as an expense against a Department in cases where the particular Department, be it the Department of the Environment, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of National Revenue or whatever, moved into an area or went against a Canadian for a particular breach or action which it saw as inappropriate and in which the Canadian was proven to be correct in the final analysis. As the Hon. Member wound up his comments, it reminded me of the earlier debate concerning people who take an initiative but in effect do not suffer any consequence if they are wrong; in effect they have nothing to lose. Obviously I do not think that it should come out of their own pockets. They have a role to play, but I wonder whether they would give the situation a sober second thought when initiating an action, be it the seizure of goods at Customs such as fishery equipment about which the Hon. Member talked a suggesting that there has been a violation of an environmental regulation or law, if they knew that, in the event they were wrong in their interpretation or the action they took, it would be the responsibility of the particular Department for which they worked. In that way we might have a little more consideration for the ordinary Canadian in terms of this particular subject.
I am sorry the Hon. Member has not given his particular motion more focus. Frankly, it is too broad, it covers the entire waterfront. Seemingly he is trying to solve the situation by having the subject matter referred to a committee, but we must remember that a whole series of subject matters are covered by the Hon. Member. Whether it is that people prosecuted under the Criminal Code should have some basis for compensation if they are ultimately found innocent, whether it is a tax situation or a fisheries move, he should have focused his motion upon one particular area. Then we could
Legal Fees
have come to grips with how much it would cost, what would be the impact of sanctions on a particular Department or how many people would be involved.
When we embark upon a new idea such as this, obviously we meet a lot of obstruction from governments, whether they be federal, provincial or municipal. We have to start small with a pilot project to show that it is a good move, that it is in the best interests of the Canadian public or at least the people who find themselves subjected to such action.
The Hon. Member suggested that someone might discover that to fight a reassessment of $200 or $400 more in taxes would cost him quite a bit more. That is not unusual. At the provincial level I know of people who did not make an improper left-hand turn or were innocent of careless driving but were advised that if the matter were taken to court the legal fees, or the costs and fines if they lost, would be such that the old phrase used in grade B movies, "pay the $2" applied. The ordinary person would say that he was satisfied he was right but that it was not worth $200 to try to save $50, so he abandoned the initiative. Frankly that is too bad. With the legal aid system in most provinces now, there are probably more actions being taken by individuals, particularly those at the low end of the economic scale, who have counsel and are able to go to court at no great expense to themselves.
I do not think most Canadians who have been on the receiving end of an action by government or a government agency need to be convinced that some form of assistance should be available to individuals wrongly charged. It is not so much charged; this is where I lose my hon. friend in criminal proceedings. It would have to be the more heinous type of crime where in the prosecution of it the Crown attorney or whoever deals with the matter might have been a little more careful, but I am uncertain whether I could go along with the Hon. Member on the prosecution aspect. I am thinking more along the lines of civil matters where a better case could have been made. Often we are called upon as Canadians to accept interpretations because we do not have the wherewithal to proceed. I think that is the point of the Hon. Member's motion today. As I said, it should have been a bit more focused.
The Hon. Member talked about costs to the individual. I wonder what his motion would represent in the form of costs to taxpayers, in terms of clogging up the court system or administrative tribunals. Has he thought beyond the fact that in the final analysis the cost to the individual may be difficult to bear? Has he thought about what would be the cost to taxpayers? Would a clogging up of the courts system or administrative tribunals flow from the things suggested in the Hon. Member's motion? Frankly, I cannot see this motion or its subject matter going to a committee. I could see a motion with more focus in one particular area so that we could examine what it would cost and what would be its impact on tax tribunals or the courts of the land. In that way we could make a better case for the type of thing the Hon. Member is trying to bring about.
On the face of it I find it difficult to determine what the motion is endeavouring to include. It would appear that it

February 10, 1984
Legal Fees
contemplates the establishment of a general legislative scheme to cover criminal prosecutions in which the Crown does not proceed with a prosecution or in which the accused is not convicted. Certainly that is the focus of public concern in recent cases about which we have heard, particularly the one in the Atlantic provinces where an individual charged with murder was found some 10 years of 11 years later to be innocent of the crime. If ever we need an argument for capital punishment, I am sure that case would be used in future debate. Beyond that, the terms of the motion would appear to extend to civil matters, to interlocutory proceedings and so on.
In this context the question must be asked: In what circumstances an individual is considered to be required to take action, to use the term of the motion itself? One would wonder what the phrase "other costs', may mean in the context of these various situations. We could determine that if we were dealing only with income tax interpretations by the Department of National Revenue. In that area we could bring about a focus and determine what is meant by the Hon. Member when he uses words like "other costs".
Assuming that a clear understanding could be reached as to the precise scope of the scheme that is contemplated in the motion, I believe that the proposals still give rise to a number of substantive and complex considerations which merit further exploration. Let me first address the question of criminal prosecutions. As Hon. Members are aware, the Criminal Code is federal legislation and is therefore covered by the terms of the motion. Indeed, under the Constitution Act, 1867, it is the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada to make criminal law and procedure.
Consideration of whether the state should provide a scheme for the reimbursement of all those who are charged with a criminal offence and who are not convicted-either by reason of a stay of proceedings or withdrawal of charge, the finding on a preliminary inquiry that the matter should not be sent to trial, an acquittal or a later determination that a conviction has been entered in error-must begin with a recognition of the traditional stance adopted in a common law jursidiction such as ours.
Traditionally, the law has not provided compensation for accused persons who have either been discharged at a preliminary inquiry or acquitted at trial, because it was felt to be in the public interest that persons involved in the discovery and prosecution of crime should not be constrained unduly by the fear of civil proceedings, particularly in view of the unpredictable outcome of any criminal proceedings. However, it would be wrong that a citizen should have to bear the expense of a criminal proceeding where, at the outset, there were not reasonable and probable grounds to commence the proceedings and they were conducted with malice or for a purpose other than that of carrying the law into effect. The law has for these reasons permitted a private action for damages in cases of malicious prosecution.
In deciding whether to supplement or replace this private action with some form of public compensation measure, a number of factors have to be taken into account. One factor we simply cannot get around in the Canadian context is that of the division of responsibilities for criminal justice in Canada between the federal and provincial levels of government. While the legislative responsibility for criminal law and procedure lies clearly within the federal Parliament, the decision whether to prosecute in any given case under the Criminal Code generally rests with provincial authorities, in particular the provincial attorneys general.
I think any discussion at this point, and here I am restricting my comments to criminal prosecution, must also take into account the fact that many thousands of people accused of criminal offences do have their legal costs paid by legal aid schemes established by the provinces and cost-shared by the federal Government. I found an interesting statistic when preparing for this address. In 1981-82, the federal Government contributed almost $30 million toward the cost of providing criminal legal aid services in over 200,000 cases across the country. I believe this consideration is important to take into account in determining the scope of the problem in light of the extent of the actual need. This is without those things which the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is talking about. In one year we are looking at 200,000 cases and $30 million. What would be the scope of the recommendations contained in the Hon. Member's motion? I think it is worth repeating that there has to be more focus.
Quite apart from questions of constitutional responsibilities, there are questions of program design, which I believe is important to sort out in considering these issues. For example, should the legislative scheme suggested by the terms of the motion extend to all those individuals who are charged with a criminal offence and not convicted, or should assistance be provided on a more restricted basis? If the basis is to be restricted, according to what criteria should it be limited? Should it cover compensation for all costs incurred by an accused person in the case of his or her defence, or should there be a ceiling on such expenditures? The terms of the motion as it is stated do not make this entirely clear. Should ability to pay figure in the design of the scheme? Should there be separate provision made for those who are later found to have been wrongfully convicted, or should such cases be dealt with by a general scheme where primary emphasis would be on successful defendants at trial or on appeal?
One option in respect of this entire subject is, of course, to use executive discretion, for example in the case of ex gratia payments to deal with, thankfully, rare instances of serious miscarriages of justice. Such an approach, of course, allows for a flexible, specific, case by case examination of particular circumstances. Whether the flexibility afforded by this option outweighs the certainty provided by legislatively created schemes such as that contemplated in the motion is a matter that should be considered in light of the factors of relevance.
Having raised a number of these points, again restricted to the topic of criminal prosecutions rather than civil or any other
February 10, 1984

actions, pursuant to federal statutes, I would draw to the attention of the House the fact that a number of examinations on this subject have already been undertaken in Canada. The Law Reform Commission examined the matter some years ago in its study paper on costs in criminal cases. I believe the Commission will be looking at the matter again in the context of its phase one consideration of issues relevant to the criminal law review. In addition, the Canadian Bar Association has been doing a considerable amount of work in this area and may shortly be making the results of the examination more widely available. The Government of Ontario has also considered the many complex issues involved and will, according to the media, be making the results of this examination public before too long.
In view of this activity and in view of the fact that the federal Department of Justice is continuing to monitor the issues involved, it may be advisable to defer any formal action with respect to the suggestion put forward in the motion until the results of these various studies and reports are known. There is always a criticism of the fact that we study things to death, that we have too many studies or that we have a committee. I believe it is better to have these studies and act from a base of intelligence and knowledge on the subject than it is to adopt a shoot-from-the-hip kind of approach where we do not know the costs involved and do not know the complexities because we have not given the subject proper study.
Because of the uncertainties which I believe are contained in the terms of the motion-and I have not touched on anything but the criminal side in my remarks this afternoon-I believe it would be the best course to seek clarification on the part of the mover of the precise scope of the scheme which he has in mind and to review the situation in light of various other studies that are being undertaken both by private bar and by provincial governments which, on the criminal side, carry the main burden of responsibility. I think it would be premature for the federal government to take generally applicable action in a field where a major, indeed perhaps the primary, impact would be felt by the provinces.
I do not want to take any more time of the House. I know other of my colleagues are interested in this subject. They feel there is some kind of assistance that might be made available to various Canadians. I believe some form of executive discretion is probably the best system at this stage. 1 would like to see it exercised on more occasions than it is at the present time. There are hardships which, with any kind of presentation or representation, should receive serious consideration. Where it is an area of mixed federal and provincial jurisdiction, surely the Minister of Justice and provincial attorneys general could get together and work out some kind of scheme so that funds could be made available in classic cases where there has been a miscarriage or truly an expense to an individual. As the Hon. Member for Calgary West said, it may very well affect the rest of their life. I again thank the Hon. Member for bringing this subject matter forward. I would be very interested-


Mr. Gilchrist:: Let the committee decide it.
Legal Fees


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The Hon. Member says, "Let the committee decide it". My point is that no committee could decide this because it is so vague and covers so many areas. The next time the Hon. Member brings the motion forward, he should focus on one area. Let us look at that, make a pilot project of it and see if we can make it work.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Motion No. 58 presented by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). I fully endorse the intent of the motion. I will speak very briefly because it is important that this matter go to committee. I had the occasion of working on a case which I believe this House should be very concerned about. It is directly related to what this Hon. Member is trying to do. There is a young married woman with two children in my riding. Her husband passed away and she was not given the survivor's benefit from Canada Pension. It went to her husband's common-law wife. After almost a year of writing back and forth, she finally came to me with this problem, and I represented her at a board of referees' hearing held to decide whether she is entitled to this pension because of her marital status. There was representation there by myself, a representative of the Government of Canada and an independent judge on that panel. The unanimous decision of that review board was that this woman was to receive the survivor's benefit.
The Department of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) appealed that decision, which forced this young woman to seek legal advice. Almost a year later, after going through the agony of discussing these matters with legal people and contacting various people to back up her submission, the case was finally heard and she won through the judge's fair decision. She was reimbursed in full retroactively. However, Mr. Speaker, there were lawyer's fees of $1,600 which were incurred through no fault of her own. This expense was incurred through the process of appeal which was caused by the Department of National Health. I would like to read into the record a letter which I wrote to the Minister of Health on February 3, 1984. I will not use the woman's name because I think that would be wrong. It reads:
I am writing to you regarding-
A constituent-
-of Revelstoke, British Columbia.
Her case-
-went to a Review Committee which ruled unanimously in her favour, that she should receive Canada Pension Plan survivor's benefits payable on behalf of-
-her late husband.
Your Department appealed this decision to the Pension Appeals Board, which has also ruled in-
-her-
-favour, and I understand that she has received retroactive payments. Because of your Department's appeal to the Pension Appeals Board, it was necessary for-

February 10, 1984
Legal Fees
-her-
-to hire a lawyer to protect her interests. This cost her over $1600, which I feel should be paid by your Department.
1 am enclosing an itemized statement of her account and 1 trust that your Department will deal with it in the appropriate way.
There were many hardships created which this woman had to go through and it was only through my persuasion at the very end that she, very reluctantly, continued on with it. Therefore, 1 want to congratulate the Hon. Member for Calgary West for his motion. 1 urge this House at least to allow it to go to committee so that these kinds of things can be discussed and, hopefully, something will come out of it so that individuals such as my constituent will not have to go through this kind of procedure.


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: There is within Canadians, Mr. Speaker, something we might call "an innate sense of fairness". When we see something happening which works against an individual, which puts him at a grievous disadvantage, even though strict legality was adhered to, we feel that something has gone wrong and amends have to be made. Part of our job as Members of Parliament is to bring these things to light. Over certain years or certain months we hear countless horror stories. We have heard some this afternoon. I intend to give you other examples of where Canadian citizens have found themselves holding the short end of the stick when they have been up against the state, the Government.
I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) introduced this motion this afternoon. I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) went into the basic idea in some detail. It gives us an opportunity to address these issues so that perhaps in future we do not have to raise them day by day as we presently do. It seems there is a difference in what we might call the general criminal law- and I do not use the term in a technical way. Perhaps a better idea might be to call it the "traditional law"-cases of assault, break and enter, robbery and these type of criminal offences. We have in our legislation a great deal of protection for the individual, whether that individual be the victim or the accused. When it comes to victims, we have provisions for restitution. We have provisions at the provincial level by way of criminal injuries compensation. If someone is wrongfully accused, he can sue for wrongful arrest. Available to people who are accused of these types of offences is legal aid. This is something generally made available by the provinces or territories.
Over the generations there has come into being a system which respects the protection of the individual. However, when we are faced with what we might call administrative law-and much of the new law which is made is of this nature and deals with government rules and regulations-we have quite a different situation. Everything appears to be weighted in favour of the administrator, in favour of the state. When someone finds himself fighting the monolithic government, it puts him into a very difficult position and he can incur considerable expense. Justice in these cases is often much more expensive
than justice under the criminal law or, as I have called it, the traditional system. If one is accused of breaking and entering, the process is fairly simple. One can act on one's own behalf in court and one is given every opportunity. When it comes to administrative law, very often it is up to the individual to initiate proceedings. That is much more difficult than just appearing in court and arguing your case. When it comes to the issue of wrongful denial of licences, for example-and these days you need a licence or permit to do almost anything-one needs a much greater level of expertise. Legal counsel has to be better informed. Very often there is a need for expert testimony from witnesses. These legal proceedings can be quite difficult and complex and frequently are very expensive.
Matters relating to taxation fall into this category even if a charge is laid under the Criminal Code. Not very long ago I spoke to someone who had been accused of tax evasion in the amount of $25,000-not a great amount of money in view of the nature of the business involved. That individual had spent approximately $250,000 in legal and accounting fees in an effort to clear his name and so that he would not have to pay the $25,000 that the Crown wrongfully alleges is owing. I do not know how this case will end, but in my opinion if the court finds the accused innocent, there should be some recourse against the Crown.
Another example occurred recently in my constituency concerning fisheries. We have heard about fisheries cases before- it seems the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is so determined to obey the letter of the law when it comes to rules and regulations that it is inclined to proceed first and ask questions afterwards. Approximately 1,000 fish were seized from a purchaser of fish in my constituency. I presume it was alleged they were caught illegally, but so far no charges have been laid and in all probability will not be laid. It may be that there has not been sufficient wrongdoing to make charges stick or it may be deemed that the public interest would best be served by not proceeding with the case. In the meantime, the person accused is unable to carry on his normal business. He does not know whether he will get the fish back or not. If the case is not proceeded with, what recourse does he have against the Crown?
Those are just a few examples, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to proceed at great length because we have already heard most of the arguments pro and some con this afternoon. I listened carefully to what the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton said. I think he had some good ideas and perhaps some valid criticisms of the motion. Perhaps it should have been more focused and perhaps we should have started out with matters relating to taxation instead of trying to include everything in one motion. There is a question of how a scheme such as that envisaged in the motion could be implemented and what the implications of it would be in costs to the Crown and the public Treasury, for instance.
February 10, 1984

Because I think it is necessary to delve into the question in greater detail, I think the subject matter of the motion should be referred to a committee. I should therefore like to introduce the following motion. I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Leeds-Grenville (Mrs. Cossitt):
That the subject matter of the Private Member's motion No. 58 which stands in the name of the Hon. Member for Calgary West be referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for examination and for report back to Parliament at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair cannot accept the amendment moved by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and I will give my reasons in a moment. The situation would be similar to that when the House discusses legislation on second reading where, in some case, the subject matter could in fact be referred to a standing committee for further consideration through this means. We are not dealing with a Bill at any of its stages, however; we are dealing with a motion. There are precedents, which I will quote if it is the desire of Hon. Members, but I do not wish to take any more time than is necessary.
May I draw the attention of Hon. Members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 435.1, which provides "It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question-" or subject matter in this instance"-go to a committee.
There are other precedents which I may quote, one going back to 1926, where a similar situation arose and in the course of debate an Hon. Member moved, and it was seconded, that the subject matter of the question be referred to a standing committee. The Speaker at that time moved the motion out of order for the same reason that I have invoked under Beauchesne's. That is the precedent on which Beauchesne's jurisprudence rests.
Therefore, I must rule the amendment out of order in this instance.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I commend the mover of the original motion. It seems to me there is a very strong case for what he is attempting to do. If we talk it out it is not because we do not appreciate it. On this side of the House I think we all appreciate it. I have witnessed two or three cases recently where friends of mine who are Members have had a tremendous amount of damage done to their reputations only to be proven completely innocent. The actions of the Government have cost them a tremendous amount of money, but there is very little they can do to recover. In some cases it will affect them financially and, in terms of their reputation, for the rest or their lives.
There is the case of the Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto where one nurse was charged, found not guilty and subsequently it has been shown very clearly that she had no involvement. The case did tremendous damage to her family, however, and had a good deal to do with the death of one of her parents. In every way that I can think of this woman has had a terrible two or three years. She is completely innocent, yet there is no recourse at this point to any kind of support or
Legal Fees
reimbursement for the hundreds of thousands of dollars she spent on the case.
I am not a lawyer but I gather that in some civil cases there are ways that one can recover court costs. There are other ways that the motion, if it were amended or adopted in its present form, could support people who are having difficulty. I can think of cases where subparagraph 1 of the motion would apply, where an individual is required to take action under an Act of Parliament and is subsequently found to be right. As the Hon. Member opposite indicated earlier, we have had many cases of individuals who had to get legal advice simply because they were not capable of presenting an appeal. There are many examples of people dealing with cases concerning taxes or bringing a claim for workman's compensation and very often the claim is proven and yet it has cost them a lot of money and they have had a great deal of anguish. In those cases it seems to me that we could provide some kind of advocacy system. This has worked very well in the Department of Veteran's Affairs in the matter of pensions. There are a number of ways of providing this help, as the Hon. Member suggests.
In criminal matters, Mr. Speaker, the Marshall case in Nova Scotia is one that has concerned me. This individual, who is not guilty of the crime he was convicted of, spent some 11 years in prison, and then we found that someone else is guilty. There are strong feelings that the Crown was remiss in this matter. I do not think there is any question that in this country we always try to be fair. We have tried to plug loopholes in our social services, we have tried to make sure that no one is actually without food or some kind of shelter even if it is temporary. But this is one area where we have done very little about the problem. The two cases I mentioned, the Nelles case and the Marshall case, have come before the public eye, and I know there are many other deserving cases we do not know about because they have not come to our attention. But it seems to me that a lot of people just seem to fall through the safety net in this area more than in any other. It is difficult to deal with because there are some people who fall through the net because they do not do anything to prevent it, they just let it happen. However, I think we should be moving ahead in this area fairly rapidly.
I welcome this particular motion, Mr. Speaker, and I think it behooves us to push the people who can come up with the answers. There are no simple answers, which is part of the difficulty. Perhaps the answer lies in having a better advocacy system. Certainly the whole question of criminal cases must be dealt with, perhaps separately from those of cases involving matters of regulations.
One of my other colleagues wants to say a few words on this subject, Mr. Speaker, so I will sit down and give him an opportunity to make a short statement.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, with friends like that, who needs enemies? I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member

February 10, 1984
Legal Fees
opposite. I think he has brought before the House a very important subject. It has now been drawn to the attention of the Minister responsible, and I am sure he will want to look at all the options available to him. Certainly it is a subject which has been commented on much more frequently in recent months and years. All of the individual cases raised here today certainly have caused a great deal of public attention and public concern. This has all been to the good because the Law Reform Commission has, I know, examined it; the Government of Ontario certainly has; the Law Reform Commission in British Columbia has looked at the whole issue of compensation in cases where individuals are wrongly accused, or they are accused and the court case does not proceed.
In the matter of certain actions taken by the Government Departments, whether they be Customs and Excise or Revenue
Canada, certainly some errors have been made which would, under the regime suggested by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), certainly result in restitution. I may be diverging a bit, but I would like to say that there are a great many cases which have been brought before this House in the last little while regarding specifically Revenue Canada. I suggest that not all the facts have been brought forward and I would think that some of our comments in the House have done serious damage to the Public Service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 13, 1984