June 21, 1984

NDP

Svend Johannes Robinson

New Democratic Party

Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the honourable and distinguished Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) a question. I note that he talked of subversion. He was recently on a subversive mission to my constituency

Security Intelligence Service

attempting to undermine the foundations of democracy in my constituency in support of one of his political cronies.

The Member for St. John's West has waxed eloquent about the fact that he does not believe that the Conservative Party should be assisting the Government in any way in rushing this Bill through the House. I am very pleased that at the last minute of the debates in this House the Tory Party has finally joined with us in opposing the Bill.

I would like to ask the Member for St. John's West a specific question. There is an opportunity for the Conservative Party to make its apparent opposition to this dangerous legislation a reality. That opportunity will come next week when the Hon. Member's colleagues in the Senate are asked to co-operate and play a little game of footsy with the Government to rush this Bill through in a week. If the Party of the Member for St. John's West is serious about stopping this legislation which is such a threat to civil liberties, are the Conservative Senators going to play footsy with their Liberal colleagues and ram this Bill through? Or are they going to stick to their principles, such as they are, and do what they can to prevent this Bill from passing the Senate next week?

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

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Member for Burnaby asked that question. By the way, I was to the hon. gentleman's district last week. We had to turn away thousands.

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

Svend Johannes Robinson

New Democratic Party

Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):

They did not want to come; that is why you turned them away.

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

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie (N.D.P. Caucus Chair)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Blaikie:

Did you say thousands were turning away?

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

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Everywhere I went there they asked with some mystification where their MP was. I said: "I do not know where he was but I know where he is not; he is not here today and I have come in his place to deliver a message". The message, Mr. Speaker, you may imagine, is not one which would warm the cockles of the heart of the Member for Burnaby. While I was there I met the new Member for Burnaby after the next election. The hon. gentleman will be languishing before the next election is over.

On your question, the way it is with Conservative Senators is this. There are not too many of them. They are very infrequent.

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

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie (N.D.P. Caucus Chair)

New Democratic Party

Mr. Blaikie:

They are old.

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

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Some of them are well up in years. They are independent thinkers. They are civil libertarians and we cannot taken any liberties with them. We cannot impose any rigid discipline on them. They were appointed to the Senate to speak and think for themselves. They were not appointed as Liberals to do what they are told. A Liberal is never appointed to speak and think for himself. He is appointed to speak and think as his Whip tells him. You can see that here in the House, Mr. Speaker. When the Whip is here you can see him sending communications by way of "photovaletic" brain cells to the Liberals here when they speak and vote in the House. We do

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

not have the same arrangement with our Senators so I cannot tell the hon. gentleman what they are going to do. They are not going to force a vote in the Senate until 5 a.m. It would clean the place out. There would not be one survivor. They are not going to commit mass murder by forcing votes on 175 amendments. But you can be sure that they will strike a vote for liberty when this Bill goes before the Senate.

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

David Berger

Liberal

Mr. Berger:

Mr. Speaker, as always, the Elon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) is extremely entertaining. This must be one of the best and most fun-filled shows in the country when he speaks.

I wish to ask him a question about the operations of the CIA in the United States, since he was referring to its operations in Nicaragua and other countries. Did he mean by his references that he was happy with the operations of the CIA? Further, does he know what the mandate of the CIA is and how it compares to the mandate of the security service that we are considering this evening?

It is my understanding that the mandate of the CIA is established by each incoming President, often by secret directive. For example, President Carter, wanting to limit the mandate of the CIA to a certain extent, passed a directive stating that the CIA should not engage in political assassinations in carrying out its mandate. Is he happy with the controls on the CIA? How does he compare them to the controls that we have established here for the Canadian Intelligence Security Service?

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

John Carnell Crosbie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Crosbie:

Mr. Speaker, by no means am I an expert on the CIA. Of course I read the popular magazines and try to keep up on events.

The only political assassination that I have seen in recent years was the political assassination that occurred last Saturday when the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) was assassinated politically by his colleagues in the Liberal Party who loved him so much and felt that his honesty and emotions were the greatest of any member of the Party. They felt that he had all of the virtues that a good Liberal could possibly have, and then turned around and assassinated him, led by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who sunk the dirk in most decisively at the dirty last moment that he could do it, by walking across to the box of the incoming Prime Minister. All I know about political assassinations is what I saw last Saturday. I happened to be down at the very scene of the crime.

With respect to the CIA, I do not know what their instructions are. I just know that the CIA is a body that needs to be carefully watched. I know that the Congress of the United States of America has two committees of members of that Congress who oversee the CIA. I know that, even so, members of those committees are very loath to embarrass the CIA or the Government publicly, and are very careful not to do so.

However, if the committees that were overseeing the CIA were all appointed by the executive and not by members of the

legislative branch of their governmental structure there, there would be no checks and balances on the CIA at all. That is why I made the comparison because I do not consider the committee that will be set up and appointed by the Government of Canada, the executive branch of which is the Cabinet, and not by a committee of the House, to be any check or balance on the security service whatsoever. It could quickly get out of hand again, just as it got out of hand in the early 1970s.

It was the Member for Regina East (Mr. Ogle) who mentioned that we can see in this country how easily we can panic, and how easily people panicked when the Pierre Laporte murder took place in Quebec a few years ago.

I have only had 20 minutes to speak. If the House would grant me some more time I would advance further arguments why I do not favour the Bill. However, that is my reference to the CIA. I happen to think that the CIA has too much power as well, but at least in the United States they have some checks and balances through committees of the Congress.

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

Harold Thomas Herbert (Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):

If there are no further questions or comments, continuing debate.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):

Mr. Speaker, earlier today I had some rather testy remarks to address to the House about the charade it went through with regard to voting clause by clause on the amendments. Never in my life have I seen such a base demonstration of an abuse of the rules by people who should have known better and who had lost total contact with one another.

There was a way to conduct that vote. It seems to me that having had to do much the same thing on legislation that was as complex as this and on which many amendments were put, three negotiators on behalf of the respective parties in the House were soon able to sift the wheat from the chaff and insist that there should be recorded votes on only those points of importance.

Frankly, last night we were being asked to vote on a lot of drivel, although relative drivel as far as the importance of the particular clauses were concerned.

Having said that, I can only say that, on reflection, I was amazed at the moderation of my words. The point is that many Members on both sides of the House have commended me for those remarks.

This is likely my last opportunity to address the House because I am going on a five-day mission to the Atlantic Provinces to receive parliamentarians from one of our European friends. I am to return next Thursday, when there may not be an opportunity to address the House. We will then be adjourning.

It is quite conceivable that we might resume on September 12. I see Hon. Members shaking their heads. I want to point out to them that their idea of getting attractive candidates quickly in western Canada is just a myth in the minds of those in central Canada. No matter what the importance may be of an individual or the fact that he may have been given a high profile in the newspapers, it will not be possible for that person

June 21, 1984

to give an immediate yes or no answer to a Liberal candidacy in western Canada. Therefore, I may have an opportunity in September to address the House.

However, I pray for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to avail myself as others have who are retiring from the House of Commons, to say thank you to my colleagues and express appreciation for being able to work with many of them. At times I have been known to be a little testy-

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

John Leslie Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council)

Liberal

Mr. Evans:

Never!

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

Edward C. Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion)

Liberal

Mr. Lumley:

Don't get soft now.

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert:

-with a short fuse. But may I say that while I violently disagree with ideas as expressed at times, over the 27 years there are very few people who have come to the House of Commons about whom I could say I disliked them personally. Some I liked a great deal more than others. We all have those preferences. We have some contacts.

It has been my lot to be on this side of the House for 20 years. While we sometimes say harsh things about the actions or inactions of Ministers, we knew them when they were like ourselves, part of the foot soldiery of the House, fighting in the trenches of the committees, and we got to know them rather well. They were decent chaps.

I do not like to be patronizing and say the same thing about the lady Members who have been with us all through those years. To say they were "decent chaps" I do not think is accepted in that sense! It was an honour to serve with them and we enjoyed their influence in the House. My only regret is that we did not have many more. I am not going to pick anyone out except one, the former High Commissioner for Canada in Great Britain, who is now part of the Macdonald Commission. When she was here, her presence graced the House.

My colleague opposite me, the Hon. Member for Beauhar-nois-Salaberry (Mr. Laniel), came here in 1962. I recall many people who came here as freshmen in 1962 who were bright, perky young Members on the back row on this side as I sat in the Chair where you are now, Mr. Speaker, and I recognized that they were a pretty hardy breed.

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

Gérald Laniel

Liberal

Mr. Laniel:

And much younger!

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert:

Yes, much younger then. Twenty-two years have passed and it is remarkable how much 22 can add to a man's life when he starts out in his late 30s or early 40s.

There are many things in this House that one would want to see changed. My colleague, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), alluded to something that could happen in the United States Senate which has a singular effect on changing administration policy. It is very difficult to make those changes here, but it should be possible. The ordinary Member on the Government side of the House should be released from the overpowering albatross of Cabinet control,

Security Intelligence Service

of everything that moves or breathes in the Chamber, and so have some independence of thought.

One has only to go back to the books of 1920 describing the lives of the people who were the first bureaucrats, the mandarins in the administration of the Public Service. The philosophy is still the same. Gracious me, I heard an analysis of Bill C-24 on the radio this afternoon. It just happens that I have been very active on the committee hearing that Bill. One can see the almost Machiavellian hand of bureaucratic control that is being imposed through the net of Crown Corporations, not only Crown Corporations of a business type, but the cultural ones in particular. The Government has now reneged on its position. We see now that directors general of the National Arts Centre and people in the Canada Council were intimidated by telephone calls not to object to Cabinet power to appoint. We hope we will get the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) before the committee if the Government majority will allow the motion to be put by my colleague the Hon. Member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) to the effect that the Minister and his deputy minister appear before the committee. That is as it should be.

I want to see more power and better services for individual Members. I want to thank the officers of the House who have served over the years. One also has to say goodbye to constituents, but one does not do it here because they are not present. As far as that goes, I think I have served them reasonably well as a parliamentarian. I did not have that opportunity, nor could I, nor would I, of being a Member of Parliament and conducting, shall we say, full practice of law at the same time, because I lived 46 hours away by train when I was first elected. Then it became 14 hours' flying time, and it is now three and a half to four hours.

Having said all that, Mr. Speaker, and having said some other things the other night on my motion with regard to the Commissioners of Internal Economy, I would like to say a few words about this Bill. I was torn really, I felt in a dilemma, over the proposal because I felt, and I still do, that ideally it would be better for a civilian intelligence agency to look after that side of the business and for the RCMP to concentrate upon being the federal police force and to carry out any of its duties that might involve the RCMP with the operation of civil intelligence and so forth. I said ideally. There I think I share the opinion of many of my colleagues. But having gone into this Bill rather more deeply in asking questions, particularly the one that was answered the other day by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) himself as to why does the Director of this agency, why does the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and why do three or four other directors who have the rank of deputy minister now, in the last 15 years and in this case with the implementation of this legislation, report through the Deputy Solicitor General? The answer given to me was fashioned by the bureaucrats. It was self-serving. The Minister shakes his head.

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:

I shake my head because it was my own answer.

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

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

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert:

The Minister has been under that influence so much that he cannot escape it. I want to tell him that I was a Member and knew the commissioners of the RCMP at the time the change was made. Hitherto the Commissioner reported directly to the Minister, but then the force suffered the indignity of having its Commissioner report to a deputy solicitor general. It is the same with this Bill.

The Minister may say that he prefers to read an additional set of condensed memos of a Solicitor General in addition to the files and the recommendations he will see from the heads of the services who report directly to him. I am one of those who asks why hire watchdogs and have someone else do the barking? Or another good lesson for a Cabinet Minister is why hire a watchdog and do your own barking? In other words, you do all the messing around down below and cannot keep your hands off the Department.

This is one of the fundamental reasons I do not like this particular Bill. I am awfully uncomfortable about the definition of "subversive". Of course, I share the total unease of my colleagues and of, I am sure, some Government Members with regard to the review committee.

Turning to Clause 6(3), it reads as follows:

Directions issued by the Minister under subsection (2) shall be deemed not to be satutory instruments for the purposes of the Statutory Instruments Act.

Why not? It is because they will escape review. It is unfortunate that the Senate of Canada does not have the same power as the Senate of Australia. The power of the Australian Senate with regard to the Statutory Instruments Act is that statutory instruments can be revoked if it is felt that they are improper. When the Statutory Instruments Act was passed, if I recall and subject to error, the future Prime Minister was Minister of Justice. It is the biggest mish-mash which exists. First, it allowed the mandarinate to determine what were statutory instruments and thereby remove as much as possible some of the directives from public examination by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments.

Have Hon. Members seen-and I think it was the only time it was ever attempted-the review section in the Statutory Instruments Act wherein there are positive reviews and negative reviews, wherein are written rules of procedure for the House and for the other place which have never been incorporated into our rules and procedures? In fact, the last special committee looking into procedure totally ignored the review provisions in the Statutory Instruments Act.

My last point concerns the responsibilities of the Director. For the general operational policies of the service, he must consult with the Deputy Minister. If the Director or any of his designated employed persons seeks a warrant or the renewal of a warrant, it has to be done in consultation with the Deputy Minister.

Briefly, notwithstanding the charade on votes last night and this morning, notwithstanding a general sympathy which I have in separating the roles of the RCMP, and notwithstanding what I think is a more proper central intelligence service, I will vote against this Bill. The Bill as it stands before us is a thoroughly bad one in its main provisions.

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

Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen

Liberal

Mr. Cullen:

Mr. Speaker, I should like for the moment to set aside the partisan debate we are having in so far as this particular Bill is concerned. I have not put in the number of years which the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has put into this place, but I, too, will be leaving the House of Commons very shortly.

It might be of interest for him to know that the future Prime Minister, when I had the privilege of serving as his Parliamentary Secretary, said: "When Marcel Lambert gives you his word, you know that that is his bond". Quite often we considered tax legislation and as two young bucks received a lot of good advice from the Hon. Member who would say: "Don't be rushing it. Just give us time to play with it. You will get your Bill next week", and we always knew we would. That was a significant tribute from the then Minister of Finance.

I made a point of going back and looking over some of the debates. The Hon. Member for Edmonton West on more than one occasion was called upon on Budget night, when all the focus was on the Minister of Finance, the Budget and the lock-up of the press, and had what I always thought was a very difficult task. He had to respond immediately on the particular night to a Budget which he had only seen shortly before. The then Minister of Finance said: "Go back and read the Budget speeches which Marcel has made because they are classics in responses to Budgets". It is significant to indicate that they were all different. There were different emphases and different lengths. Sometimes, as he said, the Hon. Member even had a tendency to lose his temper.

I should like to say that it has been a privilege to be in the House while the Hon. Member was here. He has a long and distinguished career not only in the House but as a veteran who was taken prisoner at Dieppe. Those of us who have known you as a friend will forget some of the partisanship and say that we hope you will enjoy your retirement, if that is the proper word, although I cannot see a man as active as you actually retiring. I know I do not intend to; I am going to another job.

In terms of this particular Bill I, too, am convinced that it is necessary to go to a civilian service. I, too, feel that some of the definitions could be tightened up somewhat. However, the difficulty we have is that which the Hon. Member signified and indicated many times in the past. When someone does not get their way and brings in some 300 amendments at committee stage, there is no legitimate debate. Some of the amendments moved by the Hon. Member's colleague, the new critic of the Solicitor General, warrant more careful attention than they frankly received. However, when 300 amendments are being brought in by one Party and we are trying to debate a Bill which contains over 90 clauses, it is somewhat difficult to have a legitimate debate. One is almost bound to go with the Minister and with the Bill because it is significantly better than the status quo, with the Mounties there and no control.

June 21, 1984

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

Eymard G. Corbin (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. The fact that both hon. gentlemen may not be with us much longer is not reason enough for them to talk to each other. Remarks must be directed to the Chair.

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

June 21, 1984