June 20, 1984

LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

There is much more.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

The Minister said that the review procedure, as I understand it, includes some retired Privy Councillors. It is not a parliamentary review procedure. It was recommended by a Senate committee. To put it mildly, perhaps the Senators do not appreciate what it is like to meet constituents, people on the street, ordinary people, because they have never been

Security Intelligence Service

elected. The committee was chaired by Senator Pitfield, an example of the kind of closely-knit bureaucratic, elitist group which surrounds the out-going Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-the Trudeau group. It is the very kind of Government which the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), some of his friends and some of the Liberals who attended the convention were protesting. Turner people were saying that they would not like to see those kinds of things in government.

The Solicitor General said in his speech today that the United States committee, which has parliamentary access with a Senate committee and a House of Representatives committee, is made up of people who had to go through the battle of being elected and who are responsible to the electorate. They are democrats with a small "d".

The Solicitor General said that the U.S. committee did not have access to the reports which he is recommending the review committee should have. As the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) said, recently the U.S. committee has been pretty effective. When I was in the United States a few weeks ago, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan resigned from the Senate Committee on Intelligence because the director of the CIA had not been forthcoming about what was going on with regard to the mining of the harbours in Nicaragua. The director had to come back with his tail between his legs and apologize. Senator Moynihan then returned to the committee. That is a pretty effective committee.

What are we going to have in Canada? Members can correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it former Privy Councillors will make up the committee. There will be the likes of Mitchell Sharp on the committee. There is nothing wrong with Mitchell Sharp, but the problem is that he is long gone from democratic politics and therefore he will look at things in a very pro-government way. Or we will have senile Privy Councillors, old fellows who have been around a long time? The Government will put them on the committee as tokenism.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

Do you think all senior citizens are senile?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

Do I think what?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

Do you think all senior citizens are senile?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

No, I do not think all senior citizens are senile. I am referring to the type of Privy Councillors you will be putting on the committee. Why not put the committee in the House of Commons, as do other countries such as West Germany and the United States? What is the Government afraid of? That question has not been answered.

We believe in freedom and parliamentary democracy on this side of the House. I do not understand Liberal back-benchers, many of whom are committed to being socially progressive. They say they are committed. They are commited when other countries are concerned, but not here. Why have the backbenchers not come forward and grasped this? Perhaps, the Liberal convention interfered and they did not have a chance

Security Intelligence Service

to realize the extent of the Bill. In choosing the most important thing a country can have, a secret service, can they really be serious about not having parliamentary review? The McDonald Commission recommended parliamentary review. There is parliamentary review in other countries. Can they really be serious in saying that this kind of set up will protect the rights of people? It is only window dressing. If Liberal Members have spoken about upgrading the rights of Parliament and individual Members of Parliament, then why not trust individual Members of Parliament with the review of some of these problems?

When the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) were speaking, I was thinking about the area of Boundary Road and 49th Avenue in Vancouver. East of that area is the riding of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Southwest of that area is the riding of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South. Northwest of that area is my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway. All three of us have risen tonight to demand parliamentary scrutiny. All the people in that area are working class people. They live in small homes or apartments. These people, I feel, still trust Parliament but they do not trust a Government which has gone a long way away from them. These people are not subversives, nor likely to be. However, they may belong to a church group which supports, for example, aid to Nicaragua, and they are liable to be targeted. They may send their children to university, and while in university their children may espouse a progressive cause, such as not testing the Cruise missile. Those children may have their phones bugged or may be targeted. This can happen because it has happened to many people.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

That is why we are introducing these controls.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

If it can seize the membership list of the PQ, it can seize the membership of a left wing club in the campus of UBC.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

Why do you think we are introducing these controls?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

Would the Solicitor General listen to me for a moment? People may be in a peace march in Vancouver and may be investigated or targeted for that. Let us hope they will not be, and the chances are, perhaps, that they will not be. However, I would not count on it by looking at past actions. What happens if something goes wrong with the system? Philippe Gigantes, the Senator, wrote an article about things going wrong where some senior civil servants in this town were victimized by the security service. If something goes wrong, who is to review it? This is an agency which is responsible to no one, an agency which is appointed by the Government, and God knows what kind of Government we will have in the future in this country.

What are Liberal Members afraid of? Are they afraid to trust parliamentary democracy, Members of Parliament and themselves in a proper committee setting with the proper rules? They do that in the United States because Americans

believe in democracy. We have often criticized the United States, God knows, lots of times on this side of the House, but one has to admire its faith in freedom and democracy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

And the operations of the CIA?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

But this system, Mr. Solicitor General, is a wrong system. You are going against the trend of parliamentary democracy.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

You are happy with the CIA?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Ian Gardiner Waddell

New Democratic Party

Mr. Waddell:

The Minister, with this Bill, makes Reagan look like a civil libertarian, my colleague says, but I will not call the Solicitor General names.

Let me put it this way. There has been no good reason advanced tonight in the House of Commons why we cannot have a parliamentary committee looking at this agency. They have it in other countries. It was recommended by the McDonald Commission. The present system is inadequate. The Senate recommendation does not carry a heck of a lot of weight. I say that the weight of the evidence and the argument is that we should have a parliamentary oversight. I challenge Hon. Members opposite to vote for these amendments.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Vincent Martin Dantzer

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):

Mr. Speaker, every once in a while, as these amendments have come forward, the Opposition has thrown a lifeline or a lifejacket to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). Had he grabbed it he would have been able to pull himself out of the mess which he has gotten himself into. There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that this Solicitor General will become known as the infamous Solicitor General who imposed upon the Canadian people this very flawed Bill to provide a secret service security force for the Canadian people. If only the Solicitor General would recognize that this is now a golden opportunity for him to get out of this mess!

I would like to read the motion to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the Canadian people. I am sure that anyone who hears this particular motion read will agree that it is a very reasonable motion. Motion No. 123 reads:

The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

Surely, that is the reason why people send Members of Parliament to this House. They want their elected representatives to watch over government activities. They want them to review the administration. They want them to look at the provisions and the operations of every department and every function which this Government undertakes. Therefore, what on earth is wrong with this particular provision? I am sure that no Canadian citizen who would believe that is other than a reasonable provision. If the Solicitor General would only try to understand what we are trying to do, I am sure he would grab the lifeline. It is perfectly apparent.

I have been trying to ascertain why this particular Minister is pushing this legislation through at this particular time when

there is so much more important social legislation before this House. There must be a reason. I believe if we go to the Auditor General's report of the Solicitor General's Department, we will begin to see why the Minister is pushing this legislation through. The Solicitor General has spent millions upon millions of dollars for a transmission committee, rented space, and so on. He has wasted millions of dollars to put this new force into effect. I gather he feels he would look very silly if the House closed down at the end of this month and the whole summer went by without this particular Bill being passed. The first Bill he brought forth was so bad that he could not possibly hope to get it confirmed, and he is very worried about this one.

The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who spoke previously, asked the Solicitor General why he opposed the insertion of Clause 56, as amended by Motion No. 123. The Minister did not really give the answer he gave in committee. I would like to give the House that answer. As I understand it, and the Minister may correct me if I am wrong, first of all the Minister said that the whole Act is good and should not be touched because it is better than what we now have. But we have nothing now. The Minister said, "Well, isn't it nice that we have this Bill now? But don't touch this Bill. It is the best thing we have ever had. Furthermore, I have changed it a little for you". But that evades and avoids the whole issue.

The point is that we are trying to make this piece of paper better. That is why we are here. That is why we spent so many hours in committee. That is why we are asking the Government why they will not accept any of these suggestions.

The second point the Minister makes is that we cannot have a parliamentary review committee because then the Hon. Members of Parliament on that committee might find out secrets which they would feel morally obligated to tell to their constituents. If there was ever a more ridiculous reason for not having Members of Parliament on that review committee, I have never heard it.

The American system, as we know, has a complete oversight committee composed of elected representatives. The United States has never had any problems-at least none that were made public-about receiving secret information, and there has never been the problem of that committee revealing any information which would affect the security of the country. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell this House in much more detail-I am sure the House would give him permission if he so desired-why he opposes the parliamentary review committee. I understand that he has already spoken on this clause. However, I for one would be quite willing to have him state his case once more for the record. Certainly, I believe, his constituents in the next election are going to ask him why the parliamentary review committee was turned down by this House. I know that is something my constituents are going to ask me. I feel it is incumbent upon the Minister to tell this House now, at this time, why in fact he is refusing what is a very rational and reasonable clause; that is, for the House of Parliament to set up a watchdog committee to oversee this particular security

Security Intelligence Service

force, which could be a real intrusion on the rights and liberties of Canadians everywhere in this country.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap

New Democratic Party

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to support this amendment before us. I very much appreciate the action of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) in introducing it. The amendment is very plain. It reads, and I quote:

The administration, provisions and operation of this Act shall be reviewed on a permanent basis by such committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Commons and Senate as may be designated or established by Parliament for that purpose.

It is a very simple, plain and essential motion, Mr. Speaker.

What I have discovered in three years here is that Ottawa is a long, long way from Canada. The consciousness of this place treats Canada, not just as if it was a foreign country, but as if it was on another continent or in another world. We think we should make all the decisions here without hearing from the rest of the world. The Government is even further removed. It wants to make all the decisions without hearing from Parliament.

In Spadina, we have many people who are professionally educated and employed. They are very capable of studying these matters, but with limited time since none of them is employed in doing this very work, except for me, and perhaps a Senator, if he still lives there. There are many people in small business, many people working at manual trade, and many with very little formal education. The majority come from other countries and have a varied and interesting basis of political awareness. They are all concerned with their freedom. They all want a hand in watchdogging their own freedom. The principal way of making that available to every one of them as a citizen of this country is by his or her vote in electing a Member of Parliament. They expect that vote to be the instrument by which, among other things, they will guard their freedom. They hold their Member of Parliament responsible for defending their freedom, because they do not trust this Government, and they have good reason not to.

I will not go into the long history of acts of untrustworthiness, I will simply refer to the remarkable statement the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) made a few minutes ago. He told us that the watchdog committees of the American Congress have access to even less information than is proposed for this committee here. What nonsense. It is well known that the appropriate committees of the Senate and the House of Representatives have the right to call anyone as a witness, and they do. They have the right to require them to bring any document, and they do.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Robert Phillip Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Kaplan:

That is not true.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
NDP

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap

New Democratic Party

Mr. Heap:

They have the right to examine their budget, and they do. One example of that which became very public recently was when they hauled the Director of the CIA before the committee and demanded that he tell them what he was doing in connection with the mining of the harbours in Nicara-

Security Intelligence Service

gua. When he told them they bawled him out for it. I assume the Solicitor General is trying to speak through television to the Canadian people to say that the American Congress and Senate do not have the power to examine those things. Well, he is saying something that is patently untrue. I do not propose to suggest that he is deliberately misleading the House, since that would apparently offend him on account of my Anglican religion, to which he referred before. Therefore I must conclude that as the Solicitor General pushing through his police state Bill he is astonishingly ignorant in his own field of expertise. Imagine getting up to give us supposedly expert advice and being as mistaken as he was a few minutes ago. That is why the people of Canada do not trust him or his Government.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
PC

Fred Alward McCain

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):

Mr. Speaker, if the Government chooses not to accept the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), it will simply be publicly announcing that the House of Commons is not what it was intended to be; namely, the instrument of the people through their elected representatives. Failure to accept this fact is an expression of contempt by the Minister for the trustworthiness of Members of the House of Commons.

His remarks with respect to the capabilities of the committees of the U.S. Congress are certainly not in accordance with the facts. Let us assume for a moment that they do not have total access to every single activity of every agent of the CIA. They have had the opportunity to demean directors of the CIA, and they have been replaced as a result of meetings of committees of the U.S. Congress. We, however, will have no such capability.

As I stand here I look upon the mace, the sacred symbol of the political capabilities of a democratically elected House of Commons. It is a symbol of the fact that you will be defended by arms, if necessary, against anyone who would intrude upon the deliberations of the elected body known as the House of Commons.

There are no intrusions and we have not had to use weapons. Neither have we had to call upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to defend this elected body. But we may yet find ourselves in a position where we wish that we had used arms at some point to deflect a government which trusts no one. Nothing could better illustrate its contempt of Parliament.

Do they mean to tell us that the Solicitor General and Liberal Members cannot trust the veterans sitting in this House? They put their lives on the line for this country. What about the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Neilsen) who so magnificently portrayed the efforts of Members of this House and other young people of that day in defending the democracy we are supposed to represent? Is he not trustworthy to sit on a committee and hear evidence regarding the security forces of this country? What about the lawyers who are sworn peace officers? Are they not worthy of trust as members of a committee to evaluate and judge the security forces we are appointing? What about the former Cabinet Ministers who may or may not have been veterans or lawyers? Are they not worthy of trust? Has this country not put its trust in those

people as they sat in Cabinet? Are they not trustworthy? Are they going to babble, as I believe the Solicitor General said? If they are, then we are certainly in a defunct society. We have had the biscuit.

I want to say to you, Sir, that as I campaign in the next election I am going to lay the blame for this on the new Leader of the Liberal Party. We know what the degenerate system was under the old leader, and we are now getting the establishment, as was so thoroughly described by the press as they summarized the results of the leadership convention.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink
LIB

Douglas Glenn Fisher

Liberal

Mr. Fisher:

Good luck.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Sub-subtopic:   MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Permalink

June 20, 1984