June 21, 1984

PC

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Lambert:

Mr. Speaker, I suppose one could forgive-two old hands having a little sentimental discussion. In reply, the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) has struck upon one of the salient points which characterizes this particular debate. Tactically I think it was disastrous to have dumped on the Order Paper this plethora of useless amendments. The points could have been made with a few well chosen amendments, the same as did the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who wanted to emphasize those points worth emphasizing. Then the House could have been engaged in meaningful debate. The Solicitor General might not have been moved in frustration, and I can understand his frustration, to bring in allocation of time. It might have resulted in a better Bill. The net result is that I find I am a loser. Since the Bill could not be changed in compliance with the desires of the House, not the bureaucracy, we are the losers.

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:

Mr. Speaker, I wish to first say a few words of best wishes to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on his retirement. He has been here a long time, since 1957 if I am not mistaken. As one who was five years old when the Hon. Member was first elected to this House, I wish him well in his retirement.

I want to comment also on some of the remarks he as an experienced parliamentarian made on what transpired last night. In the short time that I have been here, I have seen both Opposition Parties, because they felt strongly about a particular Bill and felt that no indication whatsoever had been given by the Government that there was an openness to amendments or change, demonstrate symbolically within the rules how strongly they felt about that.

That is what the Hon. Member's colleagues did on the Constitution when they came up with question of privilege after question of privilege, ad infinitum. That is what they did when they rang the bells for 16 days over the National Energy Program. We presented petitions ad infinitum because of the way we felt about changes in the Crow rate. Last night we felt that the final thing we could do to show the Canadian people that we really think that this is a watershed in the history of how we deal with security problems in this area was to make the House sit until five o'clock in the morning. That was not the end of the world. It is something Opposition Parties do from time to time to signal to the public, and indeed to the Government even if it does not bring about any change, how strongly they feel.

We should not get up and heap abuse on ourselves collectively by pretending that the only Parliament that is worth its salt is a Parliament that efficiently passes legislation put before it by the Government. Opposition Parties will feel strongly from time to time, that is how we felt last night. Plenty of people in my riding have had to work two shifts in a

Security Intelligence Service

row. I do not think it was a biological disaster for people to have to stay up until five o'clock in the morning.

The Hon. Member for London West (Mr. Turner) knows that sometimes people work a shift on the railway and go right back out again, and they are in charge of millions of dollars of equipment for another eight hours. All we had to do was stand up and indicate where we stood on votes which the Hon. Member called trivia. But I notice he voted with us all the time. I just say to the Hon. Member that is the way that Parliament works. He ought to know that even better than I.

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:

Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair to allow me to say a few words, as a member who has been here since the Hon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) first came to the House and who has worked well with the Hon. Member for Edmonton-West (Mr. Lambert) first as a fellow member and also in another capacity as the chairman of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and I am very grateful to him for his expert contribution in establishing the rules governing the Chair. I want to wish him on my behalf and on behalf of those who worked with him on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, all the best on his retirement from Parliament. I am very happy to know that I will have a lifelong friend in Western Canada. And for a Liberal, that is quite something.

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

Benno Friesen (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Friesen:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Hon. Members have taken the opportunity to pay tribute to my colleague for his many quality years of service in the House. I hope that sometime in the next Five or six days the House will take some time to do the same for all Members who have decided not to return to this Chamber. That is not to take away from my good friend from Edmonton West who has taught us a lot. I came here ten years ago as a total greenhorn, not only to Parliament but also to politics. I have learned something every time the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has spoken. As I said, I hope that in paying tribute to him we do not at the same time in the next week overlook the fact that there are others who will not be returning. We owe to them all a debt of gratitude for the work they have done here. We will have an opportunity to honour them. These are the closing hours on this debate on Bill C-9-

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:

I hope there is no misunderstanding between the Hon. Member and the Chair. There is a minute left in the question and comment period. I had not yet called for debate. I had recognized the Hon. Member for a comment or question. We will now go back to debate.

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

Pierre Deniger (Chief Government Whip's assistant)

Liberal

Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):

Mr. Speaker, I would like to use at least some of the time I am allowed, in concluding the

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

debate on Bill C-9, to pay tribute to the Member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) and the Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).

When I was elected in 1979 and re-elected in 1980, the first committee on which I was privileged to sit was the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. At the time, the Committee had the honour or perhaps the misfortune to consider the Bank Act. Mr. Speaker, you will agree that the task was a difficult one and when I compare the debate on Bill C-9-I must say it is small beer, especially when we consider that the Bank Act is reviewed every ten years-with the eloquent and incisive comments of the Member for Edmonton West and the wisdom of the Chairman, the Member for Sarnia . .. Having known them both as friends, I am very sad to see them go, although I realize they will both still be able to do great things for this House and for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the honour of speaking two or three times before in the debate on Bill C-9. The first time, I surprised a number of Hon. Members on a Friday morning by putting the previous question, which had the effect of referring the Bill to Committee. I did so to satisfy my own concern, as a Member of this House, that my colleagues in the House and on the Committee would have a chance to examine thoroughly this piece of legislation. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and you understand I am referring to my hon. friend from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).. . The real problem with the Left in this country, which is strangely similar to that of the American Left, becomes obvious when they are faced with legislation like the Bill on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. If they really want to improve a Bill they consider to be defective, obstruction is not the way to do it. The answer is not to prevent debate but to encourage it.

Mr. Speaker, there is a saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. However, my hon. friend from Burnaby not only wants to have his cake and eat it, he wants the icing and the candles, and he wants the candles lit the way he wants them to be lit, otherwise he does not want the cake at all. That is not our attitude. Mr. Speaker, if we consider that this debate on Bill C-9 is not something new . . . The debate on Bill C-9, on this particular service, has been going on for at least fifteen years. Fifteen years of intensive study and debate. Unfortunately, we have met with a complete lack of common sense and understanding for parliamentary procedures, especially on the part of Members of the New Democratic Party.

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 lack of common decency!

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

Pierre Deniger (Chief Government Whip's assistant)

Liberal

Mr. Deniger:

A lack of common decency, says the Parliamentary Secretary, on the part of the Members opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the Government had a choice. It could have decided to do nothing. However, it decided to act responsibly and to do so while taking a number of precautions. What were those precautions, Mr. Speaker? That should be obvious. We had two Commissions of Inquiry: the Mackenzie Commission

and the McDonald Commission. And as if that were not enough, we then decided to refer the matter to the Senate. And as if that were not sufficient, after the MacKenzie Commission, the McDonald Commission and the Special Senate Committee, we referred the matter to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, under the able and talented chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance), who, unfortunately, is leaving us as well. And throughout the process of dedicated hard work on this Bill, we did not get the co-operation we were entitled to expect from the Members opposite, considering the Bill is a reform Bill and should satisfy people who want to make a better world.

Mr. Speaker, people who see a glass with a little water in it will say either that it is half full or that it is half empty according to their own way of thinking. Unfortunately, the Hon. Members opposite always see the glass as being half empty. However, it is important to note that this Bill clearly identifies the mandate and the powers of the Security Intelligence Service. These powers are now subject to judicial control.

Mr. Speaker, to give as an example of how frustrating it is for us to discuss with the Members opposite in this House, I would like to recall the debate on Motion No. 61. This was an amendment moved by the Members opposite which we had rewritten, and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) told us that such an amendment made no sense, even though it was his own amendment which had simply been rewritten to comply with the criteria applicable to legal literature. As a Member of Parliament, I find this type of comment absolutely nonsensical, incredible and unsatisfactory because this judicial control does indeed constitute the insurance policy which should tell all of us that there cannot be any abuse of the system.

Beside, Mr. Speaker, there will not only be judicial control, especially under the Constitution which we have given ourselves and this country, and which should ensure this independence and guarantee that our most fundamental rights will be preserved just in case someone does not do his job as he should or fulfill his mandate as provided.

There will also be an independent review process which will be carried out by the Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which will both be accountable to Parliament, something which is not provided for at this time. Now what do we have exactly? Mr. Speaker, we have several controls to guard against the abuses about which we have been hearing so much from the Members opposite, especially the NDP Members, because they are altogether negative and pessimistic. Instead of trying to improve this Bill, they have tried to see to it that it is completely destroyed.

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

An Hon. Member:

They do not trust anyone!

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

Pierre Deniger (Chief Government Whip's assistant)

Liberal

Mr. Deniger:

there is Parliament. Third, there is the service itself and the Solicitor General.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to guarantee the security of Canada while providing better controls, better monitoring mechanisms, through which we can guarantee that the basic rights and freedoms of Canadians will also be protected.

Certain critics have asked about the very substance of this Bill and said: What is it that must be protected? Some have even denied that the security of the country is threatened. Some would want us to believe that, here in Canada, we are living in a completely serene and pure world where we shall never need such a security agency while the facts revealed by the Mackenzie and McDonald Commissions clearly show the opposite to be true.

Canada is a nice country! It is a great country. However, it is a country which needs to be protected. Past and recent events prove it. Let us look at past events. I had the misfortune to be more aware of one of these events than any other Member of this House. In 1945, Mr. Gouzenko's revelations shook Canada and the Western world and showed to what extent it was possible to have a wide-ranging spy network in a country as peaceful as ours. This spy network was present throughout our society. Even a Member of the House of Commons named Fred Rose was found guilty of espionage. Mr. Speaker, this threat did not disappear; it still existed in the seventies, for instance. We closed our doors to 44 Soviet diplomats. We expelled 111 between 1978 and 1983.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the events of the seventies. Because as Member for La Prairie-I was not a Member in 1970-I had a member who was still alive, he was called Pierre Laporte, he lived in Saint-Lambert on Robitaille Street, the street next to my in-law's, less than a quarter of a mile from my home, and perhaps I am the last constituent whom Pierre Laporte saw alive. Mr. Speaker, I am the last constituent whom Pierre Laporte saw alive. I was a law student then and we had a project on parliamentary procedure. So, quite naively, I called my MNA, who was a Minister at the time. I told him: Mr. Laporte, perhaps you do not know me, I am a student and I would like to see you because, as a law student, I have some work to do on parliamentary procedure. He asked me: Are you Medard's son? I said yes. He told me: Come and see me anytime. So I asked him: When, Mr. Laporte? He said Friday. I asked him at what time? He said 5 p.m. I saw him at 5 p.m. for a 15-minute appointment, but I stayed an hour and half. The day after he was kidnapped. He was kidnapped at noon the following day, was never again to be seen alive. That happened to me, it happened at home. It was done by Longueuil residents who lived on the street where I was born. They lived at 240 Gar-denville Street and I was born at 186 Gardenville Street. And they kidnapped my MNA who was a Minister at the time. He was a friend of our family. He spent his last hours helping a

Security Intelligence Service

student who had a law project. And he died. Perhaps he was even tortured, but nobody knows. And they tell me that we have no problems in Canada? They tell me that we do not need that in Canada? They tell me that it cannot happen in Canada? Well it did happen and we were there. And I was a lot closer to it than many people. I still see Mrs. Laporte and her children. If you think that they are not hurt, Mr. Speaker, and it you think that they would not have liked to have that kind of agency which might have prevented this odious crime, this murder ... I, for one, think that they would have felt more secure knowing that such an agency existed and could indeed have prevented that murder. And that did not happen in Afghanistan, it happened in Saint-Lambert. Those people who lived on my street, Gardenville Street in Longueuil, and who kept him prisoner at Saint-Hubert, on the south shore, my home. And they tell me we do not need it! They tell me that an agency such as we had in the past is adequate, but past events show clearly that it was not adequate.

Mr. Speaker, we are not talking only about local attempts because there are attempts which originate outside this country. Armenians do not agree with Turks and, unfortunately, they kill Turkish diplomats here in Canada. Those diplomats have families. Do they not deserve protection? Should we not protect as well those who might be injured in those attempts? Should we not make sure that the people whose sole responsibility and mandate is to look after the security of this country can do their job? That seems obvious to me. As we all know, Mr. Speaker, terrorism is not on the wane in 1984, it is increasing.

Let us think of what is going on in Lybia. Let us think of what is going on about everywhere in the Middle East. Let us think of the terrorist acts in France, Britain, even the United States, Mr. Speaker, and even Toronto! Let us think of the bombs that were put in certain plants, because someone might not agree with the type of products they were making. And Hon. Members suggest we might not need that! Our rights might be threatened! I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our rights are threatened in the absence of such an agency. They are threatened if we do not take the necessary steps to ensure there will be no recurrence of those crimes.

Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, if you allow the quote, that God granted man liberty under the condition that he show eternal vigilance.

If we are to blame, it is not for putting forward this legislation but for having done nothing about it for 15 years. Finally the Solicitor General had the courage and ability to defend his convictions, to put the legislation forward. Some Hon. Members criticized the bill, but did they truly attempt to determine the true intention of the legislation? Not at all, Mr. Speaker, all they did was filibuster! With his competent Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister succeeded in giving countless marks of patience to ensure that the bill goes through. And some Members have the gall to state it is not perfect. The

June 21, 1984

Security Intelligence Service

real shortcoming would be in not having it. What would be wrong would be to be deprived of it.

Mr. Speaker, that system will be envied by all free nations, by all civilized people in our world. When I see such a security system administer a civilian agency, which will surely be staffed with former RCMP officers ... I have 144 RCMP officers living in Brossard! And if you think they are against it, you are dead wrong. Quite the opposite, they want those people finally to know exactly what their mandate is, what their job is. This is something they did not have. A former Crown Attorney, the Hon. Member for Halifax must have been quite something of a Crown Attorney judging by his attitude, Mr. Speaker.

So, I want to suggest that this legislation was needed. It meets a requirement. Not an academic, hypothetical requirement, but a requirement we all experienced in this country. A requirement that is evident every evening on the newscast, when we look at what is happening in France, in Britain, in the United States, among certain groups. Hon. Members talk of freedom. My answer Mr. Speaker, is Jefferson's statement: Freedom is vigilance. Vigilance itself. Just as taxes are the price to be paid for democracy, police is a price to be paid for vigilance. And that agency, Mr. Speaker, does not infringe upon our basic rights, on the contrary.

It is this very agency, Mr. Speaker, which will preserve our fundamental rights. As for those who do not believe in this Parliamentary institution, who do not believe in the judiciary, who do not trust the morality of our present police officers, who do not believe that there are people in this country who are prepared to ensure that the country works, to see to it that their freedoms are maintained, well, what can I say, Mr. Speaker? They live within their own world . . . too bad for them! However, I am sure that if ever we face a threat such as we were unfortunate to face in the past, Liberal members of Parliament, who had the courage to stand behind this Bill which will be put to a vote in a few minutes will be praised by the Canadian public, Mr. Speaker. On the other hand, the opposition party will be scorned because it did not have the courage to improve this legislation! Canadians will say to members on the other side that they did not live up to they responsibilities, that they were remiss in their duty. And they will be the ones who will bear the brunt of such criticism, Mr. Speaker, because we on this side did not shirk our responsibilities. This legislation has been in the making for 15 years, we have been considering it for 15 years and we had to bear with the filibustering and the arrogance of members on the other side. The Hon. Member, the former Crown Attorney, does not know what he is talking about, Mr. Speaker; if only he had gone through what we had to go through ... I can assure you that we intended to pass this particular bill without time limitation and with full opportunity for the opposition members . .. Since we had good participation-

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PC

Pat Carney

Progressive Conservative

Miss Carney:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek the unanimous consent of the House to waive the notice requirements for two amendments to the National Housing Act in order that they may be printed. I have discussed this with the House Leaders of both Parties and there has been no objection.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Mr. Pinard:

Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has discussed the matter with myself, and we agree.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
LIB

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

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Does the House agree to the request of the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)?

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink
?

Some Hon. Members:

Agreed.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Permalink

CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT


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.


NDP

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

New Democratic Party

Mr. Blaikie:

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The speech just made by the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger) is the worst I have ever heard in my life.

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

Some Hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

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. It being 8.45 p.m., pursuant to Order made Tuesday, June 19, 1984, it is my duty to put every question necessary to dispose of the third reading stage of the Bill now before the House.

Mr. Kaplan, seconded by Mr. Pinard, moved:

That Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting the 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.

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

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

June 21, 1984