June 21, 1984


The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact An Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the third time and do pass.


PC

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, we are now at third reading stage of this Bill. There are four very important aspects of the Bill which deserve further consideration. You will recall that last evening we spent some time

on votes on this Bill. However, we did not have an opportunity, before coming to those votes, to finish consideration at the report stage. There were still a number of very important matters before us when we had to turn to the vote.

There are four elements of this Bill which I want to emphasize most particularly. The first is the separation of the agency from the RCMP. That has been a matter of some controversy. I suppose it is the element which divides the Government Party from our Party and our attitude toward the agency, whether it be within the RCMP or separate. Our Party favours the retention of the agency within the larger ambit of the RCMP.

That is one element. I think the Canadian public is concerned about that particular element. A lot of people have made up their mind. I am sure that a lot of others are still wondering. If there is a balance swinging in one direction or another, it is in favour of the retention of the service within the RCMP, for the very simple reason that the RCMP is a known quantity. The separate service outside of the RCMP is an unknown quantity. Given the history of intelligence agencies around the world, the separation of that agency from a known quantity is causing concern.

I will mention the second matter and return to it later, and that is the element of ministerial responsibility. This is a deep and abiding concern. Ministerial responsibility does not exist in this Bill. I know it is difficult to retain ministerial responsibility. However, there must be a link between an agency such as the Security Intelligence Service and the Parliament of Canada. That does not now exist, even with the review committee.

The third element which is causing concern is the threat to human rights and the imminent invasion of privacy which are inherent in the type of organization which is being created by this Bill. Mistakes can be made and innocent people can have their rights affronted and their privacy invaded. What recourse do individuals have to secure what they believe to be their rights? How do they protect their privacy?

One of the interesting elements in timing is that this potential for invasion of privacy or assault on human rights in Canada comes right on the heals of the Charter of Rights which is now embedded in the Constitution. People now feel that they have their rights and they are damn well going to be sure that they are recognized. How are they going to be recognized under this legislation unless there is some sort of ministerial responsibility? That is a tragedy. The Bill was not properly thought out. The link between the individuals, the legislators and the Government has not been properly worked out.

I am not questioning for an instant the need for a security intelligence agency. My experience in a previous career has taught me, and my reading since that time has reinforced what I learned, that there is a need for a security agency. However, in creating that agency we must not avoid this parliamentary institution which is a safeguard of the rights of the Canadian people. That is what we are doing with this Bill.

June 21, 1984

The fourth element arose over the past weekend. It has two aspects. It is the emergence of a new Leader of the governing Party. Mr. Turner was elected last weekend as the new Leader of the Liberal Party. In the course of time he will become Prime Minister. For the first day or so we were prepared to concede that Mr. Turner was not aware of what this Bill might contain. He had been Minister of Justice at a very critical time so he should have been aware. He should have been following what was happening, but of course he was busy campaigning. Perhaps he had not focused clearly on the contents of this Bill. Therefore, for the first day or so we were prepared to concede that, being unaware, the process of legislating this Bill was proceeding without his knowledge. That period has now passed. Mr. Turner must be aware that this Bill is before the House of Commons. He must also be aware of, and therefore must have condoned, the imposition of closure or time limitation on debate.

In two senses the future Prime Minister of Canada is coming in with two strikes against him. He is prepared to back a new institution with which he must have been familiar because he was working with the agency before. Starting out with those two heavy strikes against him on this particular piece of legislation is a pretty tough way to begin.

Let me come back to ministerial responsibility and leave the names out of it for the moment. Others have spoken about other elements of the Bill. My prime concern today is that element of ministerial responsibility.

Let me read extracts from a book that I was looking at recently. I believe reading these extracts give the gist of the story. This is the story of a person who became embedded in the security institutions of the Canadian Government. I admit that it is a novel, but this person became embedded within those institutions and it finally became clear that this person was a plant or a spy. The book first points out that those who were investigating the matter found a number of unused one-time cypher pads. Unused one-time cypher pads are used for cyphering plain language to transmit over the wires, which can then be unscrambled at the far end. However, in the belongings of this particular person they found some one-time cypher pads, a list of call signs, tables set to 24-hour cycles keyed to five-year calendars, and so on. It is the manual that is used for conveying information in a secure manner.

It became apparent that this person, having suspected that she had been detected, fled from Ottawa to Montreal with her son. Their car was traced to what was called Pier 11. The head of the service said: "Pier 11, is that not where the MS Alexandr Puskin normally docks?" The trail became a little more interesting and the fears were being substantiated. It then became apparent to the head of the intelligence service who had all these ideas in his mind that he would have to tell the Prime Minister. He was sure that the Prime Minister would not like what he had to tell him.

The book goes on to say that the head of the intelligence service saw the Prime Minister in his Centre Block office in

Security Intelligence Service

the Houses of Parliament. He gave his account to the Prime Minister. Finally the Prime Minister, having heard the story, asked the head of the intelligence agency where was the car that was used to get from Ottawa to Montreal. He was told by the head of the agency that it had been impounded by the RCMP in Montreal. It had been found on federal property within the jurisdiction of the agency and therefore could be impounded without anyone knowing it had been impounded.

The Prime Minister thought for a moment and said: "I intend to call a special meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence early tomorrow morning. I would like you to be there. We will have a number of decisions to make". The Prime Minister said: "In the meantime, arrange to have that car moved to Ottawa in a closed van and stored in a secure garage. By the way, you and the Secretary of Cabinet will be the only officials present tomorrow. I do not want the meeting advertised".

That is normal. These matters must be dealt with in a very careful manner when the security of the state is in question. He brought the Cabinet Committee together on short notice. The Prime Minister said: "I am sorry we have to meet on such short notice. As you will know, the only officials present are the Secretary of the Cabinet and the Head of the Security Service". He said that the reasons for that will become apparent. He instructed that no minutes be kept of the meeting and went on to say: "I do not intend to raise the matter in full Cabinet and I would ask that each of you refrain from discussing the subject matter of the meeting with anyone outside this group".

The scene is set. When he came to make his report he began: "Gentlemen, we have a problem. The secretary of this Committee, Mrs. Heide Latour, was discovered not long ago to be a spy, an agent of a foreign power, the Russians". This, of course, caused consternation. The Prime Minister proceeded with his account and laid out before his colleagues the full story of the operation that had been undertaken to find the leak at first, and then focusing on Madam Latour. One of the Ministers said: "Why in the hell didn't the RCMP keep her under surveillance?" The question was passed to the head of the security service who said that when it was agreed that the person in question could visit her in-laws in Quebec with her son, he suggested that she be accompanied by the woman operative who had been stationed in her house from the time they first picked her up when suspicions started to gel.

The RCMP had been dealing with this matter. The Prime Minister then said: "It appears to me that there are two practical alternatives to dealing with the problem. Make a statement in the House disclosing the facts of the case, or provide some credible public explanation for her disappearance which avoids disclosure of the true facts". It is necessary to hide the true facts. I suppose this is normal within a security operation. Someone spoke up and said: "The first alternative could be political suicide given our minority position in the House". Political considerations come into play.

The Prime Minister did not wait. He said: "Exactly my feelings. Instead, I propose that her disappearance be attribut-

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

ed to an accident to her car", the gas tank of which would have exploded causing the vehicle to dissolve in a pillar of fire. They had the car and he had instructed that the car be brought to Ottawa. That can all be staged.

While I am reading from a novel, it is an interesting novel which bears directly on what we are talking about. He mentioned that the car had been found and brought to Ottawa. He said that he gave instructions that Mrs. Latour's car be removed to Ottawa in a closed van for storage by the RCMP and arrangements were accordingly made that it be found as having exploded somewhere. He turned to the head of security and said: "I assume your people can make the necessary arrangements?"

The head of the security agency then turned to the Prime Minister and said: "Mr. Prime Minister, there is no doubt that if the affair becomes public the damage done to our extensive and sensitive relationships with various foreign security and intelligence agencies within and outside NATO would be considerable". They had to avoid that. Then comes the crunch. One Minister who was very smart said: "Fine, but it could become messy. If it does, you will understand that we have to deny all knowledge of the affair". That essentially ends my reading but those words "we will have to deny all knowledge of the affair" are important.

Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, who wrote that book. It was written since his retirement by the first civilian director of the Canadian Intelligence Service, Mr. John Starnes. It is based on his experiences. The book is called "Deep Sleepers". That is a term used in the intelligence world for those who are placed many years in advance into positions of significance and influence so they could do their spying.

I just read a small part of the book. How does it end? The Minister says: "If this becomes public you will understand, of course, that we have to deny all knowledge of the affair". There is an absolute absence of ministerial responsiblity. This is not good enough. Mr. Starnes speaks from experience.

Yesterday in our debate before we came to the vote we were considering an amendment which was brought forward by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that this House set up a Commons committee, or a committee in conjunction with the Senate which could meet in camera or openly, depending upon its agenda, to review the administration, provisions, and operation of the Service.

This Bill was not fully studied in this House-in committee, yes, but not in this House. We were not given enough time, thanks to the connivance of Mr. Turner and the Government, to deal with all the provisions of this particular legislation. It is essential in my view that there be a committee of this House to ensure that there is some responsibility to the Canadian people for the activities of that agency and for the manner in which this Bill is being implemented.

There must be a Minister who will answer. That is one of the reasons that, through the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Commissioner of the RCMP, that channel exists. But

what does this Bill propose? It proposes that the RCMP be cut out, that a separate agency be instituted and that there be no ministerial responsibility. That is the tragedy of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. It is so important that I felt I had to rise this afternoon to explain why it is such a dangerous Bill.

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

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

A ten-minute period is provided for questions or comments relating to the remarks of the Hon. Member. Are there any questions?

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

Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Gourde:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. I asked the same question to the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) this morning, but he did not bother to answer.

There are various positions concerning the establishment of a civilian agency. The position of the Government is very well known since it is in keeping with the recommendation of the McDonald Commission and the MacKenzie Commission, and that is the creation of a civilian agency. As usual, the New Democratic Party has not made up its mind, it is like a weather vane. As to the Progressive Conservative Party, the senators who belong to that Party spoke in favour of a new civilian security agency during the proceedings of the Senate committee chaired by Mr. Pitfield. However, it would seem that the caucus of Conservative Members does not see eye to eye with the caucus of senators since it appears to be against the creation of a civilian security agency.

Could the Hon. Member enlighten us and give a clear, unequivocal and precise answer to this question: what is the exact position of the Progressive Conservative Party concerning the creation of a civilian agency? And perhaps he might try to be less evasive than the Hon. Member for Bow River?

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

Donald W. Munro

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):

Mr. Speaker, the position of the Progressive Conservative Party is clear and unequivocal. It has been explained by our spokesman, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), and it is this: there must be no breakdown between the security agency and the intelligence service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

At the beginning, during those studies . . . and the senators, as the Hon. Member must know, are free to think otherwise and to have their own opinion.

I do not remember exactly the dates on which the comittee sat, but in the final analysis, some of them were in favour of separating the agency from the RCMP, while only one Progressive Conservative Senator favoured integrating the Service within the RCMP. However, since then, following the study carried out by the caucus and the submissions made by the Attorneys General of the Provinces, it became obvious that the present situation needed to be cleared up; indeed, a Bill was required to resolve the problem, but there is no need to have the intelligence service separate from the RCMP.

June 21, 1984

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

Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Gourde:

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

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

John Carr Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Liberal

Mr. Munro:

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

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

David Kilgour

Progressive Conservative

Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):

In rising to speak to Bill C-9, you will recall, Mr. Speaker-I think you were here last night-that many of us were here until five o'clock this morning. As a result, we are very tired today. We have not much desire to do anything with this Bill other than to throw it in the wastebasket. I do not think anybody, even Members of Parliament, should be asked to vote 130 times as we were last night.

Subject to that expressed concern today, I would speak on four aspects of the Bill, if I may, Sir; first, the question of the civilianization of the force, second, on the question of judicial warrants, third on the question of powers and civil liberties, and fourth, on the question of the review committee.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, my Party, and specifically the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) have made it very clear that we do not wish to see a civilian security force established, separate and apart from the security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, or The "Force" as we call it in western Canada.

I should like to give eight personal reasons why I would not like to see the security force separated from the RCMP and civilianized. Perhaps I will state my bias in indicating that.

I have worked with members of the RCMP in Ontario, Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia as Crown Attorney over a number of years. I have strong respect, affection and goodwill for the force and its unique ability, recognized world-

Security Intelligence Service

wide to obey the law and do its work without fear of favour. As the House may know, that is the oath which every recruit takes when he or she is sworn into the force. I have the highest regard for the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a western Canadian I am unhappy to see the force being told that it cannot handle the security service and that it will be civilianized.

First, the attitude of the Canadian people is the most important factor. One's personal views are not as important as the views of Canadians. I have been told that an opinion poll taken about a year or so ago indicated that 75 per cent, or three out of four Canadians, do not want to see the security service civilianized. If that is correct, the overwhelming majority of Canadians share my view, that it is not a positive step forward.

Second, what is the attitude of RCMP members? Having spoken with members of the force in Ottawa, and primarily in Alberta, both within and outside the security force, my impression is that they do not want the service taken away from them. They see a loss of career opportunities if suddenly a regular member cannot apply for the security service. It is a blockage in their career opportunities. In short, RCMP members in western Canada do not want to see the security service civilianized.

Third, what is the position of our allies with respect to this matter? We all know about Hugh Hambleton, and about other cases which regrettably have proven for one reason or another that Canada is not as secure as we would like it to be. My impression-and it is not based upon any survey or poll-is that our 15 NATO allies, including the one closest to us geographically, would not like to see the RCMP lose its identification with the security service. If my judgment is correct, our allies do not want to see this aspect of the Bill implemented.

Fourth, in my experience 99.9 per cent of RCMP members across Canada obey the law all the time, unless superior officers tell recruits or younger members to go and do thus and so. Very rarely will a member of the RCMP break the law. One of the issues confronting the McDonald Commission was whether or not practising politicians and Cabinet Ministers- and the House knows the names as well as I do-ordered the security service to carry on activities in Quebec which either tacitly or implicitly led to barn burning, stealing of membership lists and so on. Again, in my experience of dealing with the force over a decade, and complaints against it, its members do not break the law unless ordered to do so by superior officers. Indeed, as the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), pointed out, maintiens le droit is the motto of the RCMP. In my experience, members of the force follow it better than any other force in the world.

I could exaggerate and say that someone recently graduated from university with a political science degree or a sociology degree could be made a member of the security service. However, a person who has been trained as a regular police officer knows more about investigating, obeying the law and dealing with various people than such a graduate.

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

Fifth, the Government has relied heavily upon the recommendation of the Mackenzie Commission a number of years ago which indicated in effect that the RCMP could not handle high technology and, therefore, we required a civilian security force to do the job. The RCMP is becoming thoroughly involved in high-tech. We could visit detachment offices in western Canada where we would find the RCMP well trained in the use of high technology on land, sea and air. The premise of the Mackenzie Commission that the force could not handle high-tech has been effectively overtaken by events. Therefore, in my view, that reason largely collapses and the Government does not have it to fall back upon.

Sixth, I should like to deal with the question of career opportunities for RCMP members now in the security service. The Government says that they will all be given jobs. However, members of the security service have indicated that if they wished to return to regular force work at the time of the establishment of the civilian security agency their chances would be very small. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) knows well that the amount of regular RCMP work in provincial contracts is becoming smaller. At the moment there are no recruits in Regina and there is no ongoing training, to my understanding. In effect the Government is telling them that they cannot return to regular police force work because there is little or none available, especially for someone who has worked in the security service for 10 or 15 years. That is unfair in terms of the careers and the good faith with which people joined the RCMP, thinking that they could return to regular police work if they wished to do so.

Another aspect of the matter is that regular members will not be able to go into the civilian security service from regular police work. That career opportunity will be cut, and I think it is undesirable.

Seventh, I should like to touch upon a matter I dealt with previously. According to the McDonald Commission-and the details seem somewhat hazy-the RCMP security service was ordered by political masters to conduct a number of illegal acts. I am worried that a civilian force would be subject to even more political control and direction than a group of men and women who have been trained since the day they entered the RCMP. You obey the law. You do not break the law. You do not step on people's rights.

The CIA is a civilian security service. Under bad or incompetent political management or both, it did things far worse than what the RCMP appears to have done during the 1970s. We have heard reports of CIA actions which are almost beyond belief in a civilized country. The CIA experience is an argument against having a civilian force in place of a force that has gained world-wide respect.

My eighth reason for not wanting a civilian organization is the McDonald commission itself. The Parliamentary Secretary cited the question to my colleague a few minutes ago; at least I think he did. The argument of the McDonald commission carries no weight whatsoever. Mr. Justice McDonald is an

Albertan. He and I knew each other as lawyers, and latterly when he became a judge. One of the reasons he was appointed to head the commission was that he was past president of the party opposite in Alberta. It was hoped that he would not create waves for the Liberal Government as a result of that appointment. In my view, he was not a suitable person to have been given that job. The test of the pudding was in the tasting. In my view, his report is not taken very seriously by many people in western Canada, at least by those who know Mr. Justice McDonald as I do.

Even while the three commissioners were sitting, if my memory is good, Mr. Gilbert continued to make donations to the Liberal Party-even while he was purporting to sit in judgment on his Liberal colleagues during the period in question. I know Mr. Justice McDonald well. I put it to you that his report is not to be taken very seriously when he calls for this to be taken away from the RCMP.

The second subject is the matter of judicial warrants. The Liberals want these warrants to be alive for a one-year period. The spokesmen for our Party have said that these warrants should collapse or expire after 60 days. We believe that is sufficient. I am told that a number of witnesses who appeared said the same, that we do not need year-long warrants. If you are concerned about civil liberties and the effective use of warrants, you do not need that period. I think that reflects the view of most witnesses, at least those concerned with civil liberties. The Government's refusal to accept amendments on that principle was unsound.

The third heading is the question of power. I refer to subclause 2(b) which in part states "intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada." They can unleash the whole panoply of arsenal tools against you. This includes opening mail and taking records, including medical records. There is a whole range of very severe actions that can be taken against you if it is decided that you fall within the definition of a security threat. We have argued, as did many of the witnesses, that that is too broad, that there must be a more narrow definition of security threat before triggering all of those actions I mentioned. Why will the Government not at least start with a smaller definition? If it proves too constrictive, it can go to a wider one. Why go to such a wide area if it is truly concerned about civil liberties in this country?

The fourth matter is the question of the review committee. The Hon. Member for Vancouver South and the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills said that the review committee should have access to Cabinet documents. The Government refused all amendments to that effect. If this Bill passes, as it obviously will, the review committee will not have access to Cabinet documents. I am told that nobody demolished the Government's position better than the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). He pointed out in committee that public servants and executive assistants see Cabinet documents, and even secretaries have access to them. The fact that the Government has taken the

June 21, 1984

view that Privy Councillors sitting on the review committee should not have access to Cabinet documents does not reassure one of its good intentions in this matter. Unless there are things going on in Cabinet that should not be going on, the Government should believe in the open, accessible and democratic principle through which this committee should have access to documents.

You have indicated my time is just about up, Mr. Speaker. Let me repeat the point made by others. My Party wants an overview committee consisting of Members of Parliament. The security intelligence committee of the United States Senate consists of only elected Senators, albeit, to be elected to that committee you require the support of all other Senators. That guarantees that you have democratic and political control. It is a much better concept than what we have here. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for letting me make my points on the Bill.

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

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Questions or comments.

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

Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Gourde:

Mr. Speaker, my colleague also spoke at length to the issue of separation. He seems to have forgotten that two important commissions, the McDonald Commission and the Mackenzie Commission, did come out in favour of separation or the creation of a civilian agency. The Pitfield Committee was also in favour of separation. He even made some allegations which, if we were not in the House and did not enjoy parliamentary immunity, would be a serious breach against the bench, for he implied that, for partisan motives, Mr. Justice McDonald had been influenced or . .. anyway, his remarks could have meant that.

However, that surprises me somewhat because he was referring to an Alberta judge. One member of his party, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and perhaps the Hon. Member might explain to me ... On February 20, 1984, as shown in Hansard on page 1545, the Hon. Member for Edmonton West said this:

I would personally tend to favour a civilian agency ...

I repeat, a civilian agency, referring to Bill C-9 and the civilian agency-

I would personally tend to favour a civilian agency with a director with much more responsibility to the Minister ...

That is exactly what we are advocating in the House today.

Under these circumstances, do the remarks of the Hon. Member against Mr. Justice McDonald apply as well to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West?

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

David Kilgour

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Kilgour:

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his question. I must say that I am not in complete agreement with the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) that the new service should be a civilian agency. I respect the opinions of the Member for Edmonton West, but as I said earlier, I have spent a lot of time with the

Security Intelligence Service

RCMP and I respect these people. I may have had longer experience with their officers than the Hon. Member for Edmonton West. I am convinced that the agency must remain under the aegis of the RCMP for the reason I have just given. The Hon. Member also said that both the McDonald and the Mackenzie Commissions recommended this separation. For the same reason, I do not agree with the findings of either Commission.

Finally, the Hon. Member even mentioned the Senate Committee chaired by Mr. Pitfield. He may not be aware of Mr. Pitfield's former activities; he was Secretary of the Cabinet for several years. In short, if I may say what I think about it, the Hon. Member should look for a more democratic, a stronger and a more effective source than the Pitfield Committee. For my part, as someone who strongly believes in a democratic government, chosen by the people because, or at least I should hope so, of its ability, and so on-

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

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any other questions? Debate.

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

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):

Mr. Speaker, it has been said that there are none so deaf as those who refuse to listen. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) claims that he has listened to a wide range of advice and, on the basis of the advice he received, has brought forward a Bill which is the best Bill he could bring forward. The fact is, however, that a wide range of very responsible organizations with which the Minister worked closely before he became a Minister appeared before the Justice Committee, made representations, criticized important clauses of the Bill, made concrete proposals and drafted amendments which they believed would make the Bill better. All of those efforts were ignored and rejected by the Minister and by the Government.

We on this side have continually said that we accept the fact that Canada, like other countries, needs to have a security agency. We have said that we want a security agency which will do its job but will respect the rights of Canadian citizens, will observe the law and will perform its duties in a manner which will permit it to do its job while not infringing on the rights of Canadian citizens. I think the Canadian Civil Liberties Association put it very well in its brief, part of which reads as follows:

In the troubled and dangerous world of today, we do not, indeed we cannot, object to the performance of security and intelligence functions on behalf of the Canadian people and their institutions ...

But the endorsement of the goal does not carry with it a carte blanche for the means. The lessons of history demonstrate all too well the ease with which national security has been invoked improperly to curtail personal liberty.

We have heard a great deal of evidence about the fact that our security agency, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did in fact break the law. That particular assertion was made by the McDonald Commission. The RCMP did in fact break the law and infringe upon the rights of Canadian citizens on many

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

occasions. Its members were involved in kidnapping, barn burning, the theft of dynamite and the theft of the membership lists of a legitimate political Party. Those are just a few of the things which were done. Canadians learned of these facts almost by accident.

Again and again, we have been told that security operations must be kept secret or horrible things will happen. That is the position taken by the British security organizations. Yet many people who were very high in the British security service turned out to be double agents and spies for the Soviet Union. It seems to me that if they had not kept everything so secret, and if the public had been given more facts, those spies would have been discovered much sooner than they were.

In the United States, because the Congress has access to so much more information than Parliament, and because the American Freedom of Information Act gives the public access to so much more information than ours, both the FBI and the CIA were found to have committed acts which were absolutely contrary to the law. These are the facts, Mr. Speaker. What we want is a security agency or service which lives by the law.

It has been suggested that we are asking for too much. It has been suggested that this Bill in fact meets the requirements of our country. It has been suggested that, as compared to an earlier Bill which was withdrawn, this Bill has met most of the objections of organizations and individuals to the earlier proposed legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The fact is that a host of very responsible organizations have made clear their objections to the present Bill. They have indicated how they think the Bill should have been drafted in order to have a security service which would do the required job, but would give the people of Canada the needed protection to continue to express their views and promote their policies as they should in a democratic country.

We have heard some of what I am about to say before, but I want to point these things out to the Minister because I think that what the Minister has done in bringing forward this Bill is to forget his past, to forget the things for which he supposedly worked in earlier years and to forget the belief in civil liberties supposedly held by members of the Liberal Party. He has brought forward a Bill which has been drafted by senior officials in his Department and in the security service. The Bill does not give organizations in Canada, some of which may hold views which are accepted by the majority of the people of Canada, the right to continue to do the things they wish to do and to advocate their views without being put under surveillance, without being infiltrated, without having their mail opened, without having their telephones tapped, all of which should not happen in a democratic society.

The Canadian Council of Churches includes all the major churches in Canada, except the Roman Catholic Church. It includes the Anglican Church, the Baptist Convention, the Greek Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church and the United Church, to mention just a few. In regard to this Bill, the Council has said:

In our view. Bill C-9 is sufficiently broad in scope and vague in definition to permit intrusive surveillance in the form of electronic bugging of conversations, surreptitious entry of offices and homes, invasion of confidential records, mail openings and infiltration of social organizations, churches, agencies members and employees. It makes possible surveillance or interference with many lawful activities. It is inconsistent with our vision of the sort of Canada in which we seek to work and live.

The Canadian Council of Churches is a very large and well respected organization. Why would the security service want to do this kind of thing to the Canadian Council of Churches? If the security service does not want to do this type of thing, why does the Bill require a clause which would permit it to do so?

I would like to quote further from the brief which was presented by the Canadian Council of Churches which reads:

We are particularly concerned about the effect of broad interpretation of Paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 2. Our submission is that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service could construe lawful church activities, for example in mission work, and/or lawful church and community activities, including development education, peace advocacy and human rights defence as falling within these definitions, and hence to determine previously lawful activities as threats to the security of Canada.

The Council is not speaking without some knowledge of what might happen, because the World Council of Churches of which the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, Archbishop Scott, until recently, was the head, has been accused by some people in the United States of having given money to the African National Congress which was used for the purchase of arms. The World Council of Churches has denied that and has explained that the money they gave to the African National Congress was to be used for welfare and relief. If some people believe that about the World Council of Churches, obviously it would be quite possible and likely that the security service, as proposed in this Bill, would have the authority and might well intrude into the activities of the World Council of Churches.

I would like to quote from a submission which was made by the Canadian Association of University Teachers to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. That submission dealt with the right, as provided in one clause of this Bill, for the security agency to keep under surveillance-which means the opening of mail, the wire tapping of telephones, and so on-foreign academics who visit Canada. The CAUT submission reads:

It seems to say. .. that two Ministers of the Crown can sign a document which will allow the security forces to collect intelligence relating to the capabilities, intentions or activities of any visiting foreign professor or any foreign student at a Canadian university. It does not require that this be triggered by reasonable suspicions of involvement in terrorism, espionage or subversion. It need only be done pursuant to the conduct of the international affairs of Canada.

In other words, if a university professor from an eastern European country, who is in all likelihood a communist, comes here to give a lecture, arranged by a Canadian university which is interested in extending its knowledge of what is going on in eastern Europe, that professor who comes here for purely academic reasons could be put under surveillance by the security agency.

June 21, 1984

The CAUT suggested that a section be added which reads:

-a bona fide visiting foreign professor under contract to a Canadian university chartered by Her Majesty in right of Canada or any of the provinces.

The CAUT requested that section because foreign professors should not be placed under surveillance.

I would like to turn to the submission made by the Canadian Jewish Congress. It produced a tremendously well-documented submission at the time Parliament was discussing the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That Congress has done a similar job in connection with this Bill. I would like to quote from their brief as follows:

Canadian Jewish Congress recommends that the members of the Review Committee be appointed by the Governor in Council with the consent of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and after consultation with the leader in the House of Commons of each party having at least twelve members in that House. This requirement for the participation of each major political party in the selection process is intended to provide the Committee with the benefit of expertise and independent judgment.

I believe what we ought to have is an oversight committee made up of elected representatives, as is done in West Germany and in the United States. The Canadian Jewish Congress does not go as far as that, but it makes it clear that it believes that the review committee should be appointed with the approval of not just the Prime Minister, who would call in the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of another Party and inform them of what the Government is doing, whether they like it or approve of it, and tell them who are the people who will be appointed. The Canadian Jewish Congress made the recommendation that the appointments should be made with the approval of the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of any other Party which has 12 or more Members. What is wrong with that? What is wrong is that this Government is afraid to open the doors and let anyone except the trained seals whom it appoints see and do anything about what it is going to do.

The Congress goes on to say, in connection with the threats to the security of Canada, that the clause should have been amended to read as follows:

Unlawful activities directed toward undermining or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow, by violence, of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada;

In other words, there would not be surveillance, infiltration or wire tapping of those organizations which are expressing views and positions which they have the right to do in our democratic system. The security system would only be allowed to investigate organizations which have as their objective the overthrow or destruciton of our country by violence.

I would like to refer as an example to the province from which the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Gourde) comes. The security service had every right, and it had the duty, to investigate the FLQ and its activities. However, I would say to him that the security service had no right under the law, and certainly it did not have any right morally, to steal the membership list from the Parti Quebecois. We live in a democratic society. Parti Quebecois has said openly that it believes in the separation of the Province of Quebec. I oppose that view and I congratulate the people of

Security Intelligence Service

Quebec who have already, and who I am certain will again demonstrate by their vote in a free and democratic election, that they do not want separatism.

I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that there was no reason for the security service to steal the membership list of the Parti Quebecois. And I suppose it will be 30 years or 40 years, if ever, before we find out whether it was done with the knowledge or without the knowledge, with the consent or without the consent, of the Solicitor General or the Minister of Justice of that time. However, I say to the Hon. Member that that was inexcusable. It is for that kind of reason that we in this Party do not trust this Government. It illustrates why this Party will not vote for this Bill, Mr. Speaker. We would, however, vote for a Bill which gave the security service the power which it needs, but which would protect the rights of the Canadian people.

I would like to quote another section from the excellent brief of the Canadian Jewish Congress. The brief states that there should be a section as follows:

The Service is prohibited from investigating the affairs or activities of or engaging in surveillance of any person or group of persons solely on the basis of the participation by that person or group in lawful advocacy, protest or dissent.

Let me again challenge the Parliamentary Secretary to explain-if one accepts that as a very reasonable proposal by the Canadian Jewish Congress-why the security service stole the membership list of the Parti Quebecois, and why after having committed that act, which the McDonald commission says was illegal, the response of this so-called Liberal Government is, "It was illegal before but we are now going to change the law to make it legal so we can do legally in the future what we did illegally in the past"? That is wrong, wrong, wrong, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to hear the Solicitor General give me an explanation of why he seems to want that kind of thing to continue.

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

I would like to ask the Hon. Member, who said for instance that he did not trust the Government, whether the New Democratic Party is willing to trust those who will work for

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

the new security service and how far this trust may go. Indeed, from what the NDP Members have said, anyone who works for a security service would need someone else beside him to monitor what he does and this second person would have to report to a third, who would report to a fourth or to a group which could be a Parliamentary Committee, and this would create such a massive agency or security service that it would no longer be able to serve its purpose.

In view of the circumstances, can the New Democratic Party tell the House to what extent they will trust the people in these services? Where does trust begin? Is it where ends the trust of those who work in the Departments or the people who work in the security services? This is what we want to know.

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

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. Orlikow:

Mr. Speaker, I thought I made it quite clear that the criticism in the suggestions which I put on the record came not from me. I would not be surprised if the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary took the view that I, or any other Hon. Members of my party are not really knowledgeable in this field or any other field. That is their usual approach. However, what I did, Mr. Speaker, was to put on the record the very valid questions, complaints and fears of respected, responsible, large organizations. The Parliamentary Secretary does not have to convince me that all the protections are there. He must convince those organizations. I have not heard any one of the organizations which made representations at the committee, wrote to the Minister or to any Member of Parliament, say, "Now you have your amended Bill, we are satisfied that our objections have been met".

I would like to do something which I do very seldom, Mr. Speaker, and that is to give a personal illustration. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary knows, but the Minister does, that nine Canadians, of whom my wife is one, are now in the process of suing the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington, D.C. for coming to Canada to a hospital in the Province of the Parliamentary Secretary and funding an experiment in mind control. How was it able to do that, Mr. Speaker? It is able to do that because the American Freedom of Information Act is so much better than ours. Investigators in the United States were able to obtain access to tens of thousands of pages of CIA documents from the 1950s and 1960s. Without those documents they could not have acted against the CIA. That could not happen in Canada, Mr. Speaker, because our Access to Information Act does not permit it. In fact, the Minister knows there are records of the RCMP having do to with security which are not 10 years or 20 years old, as in the CIA case, but they are 50 years and 60 years old, and they are still being kept secret.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, some of us have questions and doubts and suspicions about the way in which the security service in Canada has operated in the past, and the way in which it will be able to operate in the future, whether it be a civilian agency or the RCMP, given the law which we are going to pass today. And if some of us have some worries, the

Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary should not be surprised.

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

Gaston Gourde (Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada)

Liberal

Mr. Gourde:

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

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

David Orlikow

New Democratic Party

Mr. Orlikow:

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

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

Jacques Guilbault (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):

Are there any more questions? Debate.

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

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, just a week ago today I was speaking on the closure motion which was brought in at the last stages of the debate. That closure motion totally gutted the debate; the right to debate the Bill was taken away from us. Once that was removed, for many of us, especially those from western Canada, the debate was practically closed. Coming from central Canada, the Minister has perhaps overlooked the high regard we have in the west for the RCMP. They were a part of the west. They were formed to maintain law and order in the west. The RCMP as a whole is considered to be a friend of western Canada. In a sense the force was established as a result of the friendship it developed with the first people who lived out there, the native people. The force was fair, honest and it could be trusted. This above all is why the native people held the force in high esteem. This esteem has carried through to the modern day generation in western Canada. For those reasons this is perhaps something to which the people in central Canada have not given a great amount of thought. This is one of the reasons why we in the west are very suspicious about what the federal Government is doing with this legislation.

Why are we doing this in the last days of the so-called Trudeau regime? We have other Bills which will be carried over into the next Parliament. The Minister shakes his head, but there is a Competition Bill and the Bank Act. Goodness gracious, the Bank Act kept coming back through different sessions and even different Parliaments. There did not seem to be as much of a hurry with that as there is with the establish-

June 21, 1984

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

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:

Not because of us.

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

Thomas Gordon Towers

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Towers:

-on this legislation, trying to impress the Government with the fact it should take a second look at it.

Another thing I have to ask is why is the new Leader of the Government Party not taking a hand in this? If he is going to do something for the west, as he promised us he is, I tell you that there is nothing better he can do for western Canada at this time than to put a hold on this legislation until such time as he is installed in office and can have a look at it. Apparently he has overlooked that. A great deal of distrust is created in the minds of western Canadians if he can do something but is doing nothing. He has a perfect opportunity here to ask his Minister to delay this legislation. There might be a spot in his future Cabinet for the Minister, or he could carry on as Solicitor General. I am sure my Party would agree with that. But the Government has to take a second look at this Bill.

In any event, I do not want this debate closed with a shadow over the image of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. I am satisfied that all Members of my Party would agree with me when I say that there does not exist a law enforcement body in any part of the world superior to the RCMP. Why, then do we have to distrust them when we set up this security agency? This is one area where my colleague and I from Winnipeg North disagree. He just said it was immaterial to him whether it was left with the RCMP or placed with a new agency. Well, it is not immaterial to us. We trust the RCMP. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) made a statement some time and I want to put it on the record. He said:

As a law enforcement agency the RCMP enjoys an international reputation; it is one of the best police forces in the world. They deserve our respect and our admiration for their success when enforcing the law. But in its security intelligence work-work that occasionally deals with sensitive political questions affecting the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens-the RCMP has been entangled in innumerable difficulties. Those difficulties centre on activities which are not acceptable in Canada, and we need to find a way to prevent them.

Isn't that some admission? The reason the RCMP got into trouble was because of Government interference. That came out in this House of Commons concerning the seizure of lists of Quebec separatists. Who inspired that? I am as sure as I am standing here today that the RCMP would not have done that had there not been some suggestion, either from provincial politicians or federal politicians.

My friend on the Government side is smiling. Well, we are good pals, and I bet he would agree with me on that very issue. There had to have been some influence there or the RCMP would not have done that. Why would they need to? They have other things to do. Therefore I am sure the suggestion was made somewhere along the line that this had to be done. So

Security Intelligence Service

the officer or officers set out to do a job and this is where the Government went wrong.

Take, for example, the October, 1970 crisis in Quebec. It was not the RCMP that created that situation, it was the Government. It did not give the required guidelines to the force. This is what an officer of the force told me. If they had been given the guidelines under which they knew they had to operate, they would have stayed within them. There is no guarantee that this new agency the Government is setting up is going to be under that kind of regimented control which exists in any force such as the RCMP. They are all subject to their superiors.

What guarantee do we have that the members in this agency are going to be under any kind of control? We have none whatsoever. That is why this debate is so strenuous. If the Government was satisfied and could prove to us, in a legitimate way, that it was right, and could prove to us that the new agency was going to be under adequate control, we would go along with it.

The Government is now bringing in legislation 14 years after the last act took place during the October Crisis in 1970. Why are they bringing it in at this particular time? The RCMP had been doing a reasonably good job until such time as the McDonald Commission was put in place. I believe it existed from 1977 to 1981. I was told at the time that the RCMP were kept so busy trying to dig up information at that particular time they did not have the manpower to do the job for which they were intended; that is trying to control any espionage which was taking place in the country.

The RCMP have been treated shabbily by the Government. I want all Canadians to know that. As far as western Canadians are concerned, as this Bill comes into force and effect, the image of the RCMP is held in as high regard in western Canada today as it ever was. Although the Government opposite questions that image, it does not mean that our feelings have been allayed. Western Canadians are loyal and they are loyal to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

I have a fear that we will never know how successful or otherwise this new agency will be. There is no way we will be able to measure what is taking place. We will not know about their successes or otherwise. That creates a real dilemma for all Canadians. We are not going to be secure in the knowledge that those people who have adverse opinions or ideas or want to get involved in espionage in Canada will be under control. This is one of the reasons we are concerned.

I will read an article into the record from The Globe and Mail of September 15, 1983. This relates to the Senate study of this Bill. The article reads:

A Senate committee now is studying the move to set up the agency. When the Senate makes its report, Mr. Kaplan said, "the Government will consider it and I've indicated I'm very amenable to amendments.''

The new bill "will respond to sensible suggestions" made during the Senate hearings, but he added he hasn't drawn up his own list of what might be retained when the bill is redrafted.

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

This is when he was dealing with the former Bill, C-157. The article continues:

The changes would "not just be a question of editing but a question of principles."

However, Mr. Kaplan said no substantive change will be made in a much-criticized section of the bill that would allow members of the security service to take any reasonable actions which are "necessary to enable them to perform their duties and functions."

That section will stand because "the principle is already accepted across the country," the minister said. "People want members of the new agency to have the same protection as peace officers."

Mr. Kaplan suggested the wording of the article could be altered slightly "to find a formula that supports that principle."

"That's all we want. We don't want more protection" for members of the new agency than exists for peace officers, Mr. Kaplan added.

I think the Minister errs in that, Mr. Speaker. He needs more protection for the citizens rather than for these people who will be political appointees. That is another feature of this agency which frightens us. There is not an elected politician in Canada today who has any effect on the appointments within the RCMP, or at least they should not have. If they have, they are intruding into areas where they should not be involved. This should be left up to that body itself.

There is too much room for the Minister to manipulate the system. Once it is put in place, how is it changed? A lot of people are concerned about the placement of this body. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, as well as other Members of the House, received this press release from the Canadian Medical Association. I will read it into the record. It reads:

Some parts of the federal government's proposed bill to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service threaten the confidentiality of Canadians' medical records and are against the best interests of both patients and their doctors.

This was the essence of a letter from the Secretary-General of the Canadian Medical Association to the chairman of the House of Commons Committee now studying Bill C-9.

Mr. B.E. Freamo pointed out three areas of the proposed legislation which should be of particular concern to the public.

Under Section 16 there is absolutely no protection for the patient against having his records examined and/or having his physician provide information about him over and above what appears in the record.

Section 19 appears to provide unlimited disclosure of a patient's medical information as the Security Intelligence Service sees fit.

Section 23 of Part II of the proposed bill authorizes the holder of a warrant to enter any doctor's office and take any patients' records found there.

Section 24(b) can be interpreted as directing physicians to release their patients' medical records if the physician believes "on reasonable grounds" that the investigator has a warrant. In other words, search and seizure may be carried out in the absence of a warrant if the physician is led to believe that one exists.

"I must express to you in the strongest possible terms the CMA's concerns over the potential mis-use and abuse of the information in medical records if the aforementioned sections are retained in the bill," reads the letter to Claude-Andre Lachance (MP Rosemont).

"Physicians may be reluctant to commit to writing information provided by a patient on a confidential basis if either the doctor of the patient believes such information can be obtained, used or disseminated by the Service."

Mr. Freamo added that patients would be reluctant to provide all relevant details of their illness to a doctor, thus affecting their chances of recovery. "This aura of distrust would be detrimental to the practice of medicine and certainly not in the best interests of the patient."

He concluded by requesting that the sections in question either be removed or at least modified to reflect the concerns of the medical practitioner for the rights of his patient.

We have been asked where this search and seizure stops. What happens if a mail carrier, while carrying mail to an individual, is accosted by an individual with a warrant to seize the mail? I am sure that the mail will be handed over and opened.

You have signified to me that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. I do want to impress upon you and the Members opposite the high regard with which the RCMP are held in western Canada. Regardless of the implementation of this security agency, and regardless of what was said about the McDonald Commission, one of the questions that western Canadians ask first and foremost is whether any member of the force ever benefitted personally from any of these actions. The Mackenzie Commission and the McDonald Commission never once suggested that a member of the force ever received any personal benefit. I can say that this is where the line is drawn. Of course there was not, as far as the RCMP was concerned.

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

June 21, 1984