Laverne LEWYCKY

LEWYCKY, Laverne, B.A., M.A.

Personal Data

Party
New Democratic Party
Constituency
Dauphin (Manitoba)
Birth Date
February 12, 1946
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laverne_Lewycky
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=02c14aea-2077-4a74-8005-a0bd197f4aaa&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
executive assistant, professor of sociology

Parliamentary Career

February 18, 1980 - July 9, 1984
NDP
  Dauphin (Manitoba)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 1 of 48)


June 26, 1984

Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition of some 552 petitioners from the areas of Ste. Rose, Ste. Amelie, Ebb and Flow, Rorketon, Winnipegosis, Laurier, Fork River, Crane River, McCreary and Eddystone, who state that whereas human life begins at conception and is a proven scientific fact, and that whereas the present abortion rate is unacceptable, they humbly demand that we as elected officials fulfil our duty in restoring protection to all human life, including the life of the unborn.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Full View Permalink

June 20, 1984

Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):

Mr. Speaker, I have 236 petitioners from the areas of Swan River, Durban, Brandon, Minitonas, Kenville and Benito who ask that the Criminal Code be changed to ensure that the unborn are given the same rights and respect to live as the born.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Full View Permalink

June 19, 1984

Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 503 residents from the communities of Dauphin, Swan River and Sifton, who express their concern that there are over 60,000 abortions annually in Canada. They state their opposition concerning the commercial experimentation on unborn foetuses. They call for legislation to recognize the rights of the unborn.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   PETITIONS
Full View Permalink

June 19, 1984

Mr. Lewycky:

Three hundred and fifty miles from the north to the south, and 250 miles across, and I have no airplanes at my disposal.

Topic:   PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS
Subtopic:   REPRESENTATION ACT, 1984 MEASURE TO ESTABLISH
Full View Permalink

June 12, 1984

Mr. Laverne Lewycky (Dauphin-Swan River):

Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to speak on Motion No. 1 amending 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. The short title of the Bill is the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. It would be fairly safe to say that in western Canada the role of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has been a bit different from the role they have played in the rest of Canada, and so has the history of Security. For the edification of the House I will mention that the Northwest Mounted Police Force started in Swan River, some 110 miles northwest of Dauphin, which is now a part of my riding. In the prairie provinces, and specifically in Manitoba, we do not have a provincial police force. That little thumbnail sketch perhaps indicates some of the differences that Members from the west may bring to bear in this discussion.

In recounting this history and in looking at some of the proposals which our Party has made, it is important to consider the fact that we have called for public hearings on this Bill, a Bill which would have such widespread implications. The reason I gave the thumbnail sketch is that as far as the west is concerned, this Bill would have profound implications in terms of Canadian security. It would be important to have such hearings, as the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has stated many times before.

I will draw an analogy. I sat on the Special Parliamentary Committee on the Participation of Visible Minorities in Canadian society. As we travelled across Canada we discovered that all the ethno-cultural and various race relations

June 12, 1984

groups appreciated the opportunity to present their briefs and concerns to the special committee of Parliament. That firsthand experience which I gained very recently on a very important issue in Canadian society gives me an experiential feeling as to the value that having such hearings would bring to Bill C-9 which is under discussion.

We in the New Democratic Party have a number of concerns, as has been mentioned. The defintion of the "threats to the security" of Canada in Clause 2 gives us great concern. We feel that this definition should be significantly narrowed in scope so as to ensure that this new service does not engage in surveillance of what could be lawful dissenting activity. We have had good representations. I listened to some of the debate earlier this day. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), expressed the concerns that various churches have raised with regard to subparagraphs (c) and (d). The Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) of the Conservative Party was very concerned that if he spoke to the Western Canadian Concept party he may become a target of surveillance. I will not comment on whether he should be a target of surveillance. He expressed that concern very cogently in his representations.

We feel that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police should have a mandate to deal with domestic surveillance according to the criminal standard, as is the case in the United States. This would of course involve the deletion of subparagraphs (c) and (d) in the proposed mandate of this proposed agency. We are very concerned about this very broad, general, vague and threatening defintion of the threats to the security of Canada as contained in Clause 2.

One of the elements of concern which we have expresed has been in conjunction with the criteria for the various security assessments. In 1982, some 75,000 people in the federal Public Service had to get security clearance. There is not an adequate set of criteria to examine the security assessments which it is proposed should be conducted by this new civilian security service. We feel that any criteria which may be imposed should be put in a statute or that there should be some sort of regulation which would be made public and gazetted. In that way the public would have an opportunity to examine the criteria. In addition to that, the agency should be subject to some sort of review by a parliamentary oversight committee. We feel that these criteria for security assessments must be looked at very carefully. Furthermore, we feel that the security assessments should be made either by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or by a branch of the Public Service Commi-sion, as was recommended by the McDonald Commission.

In addition, we are concerned about some of the broad implications of this Bill. Clause 16 of this Bill confers a new and unprecedented power on this new civilian security service which would target individuals who, we feel, pose no threat to the security of Canada. We feel that this clause would include political refugees, professors who are visiting lecturers at universities or even business or labour leaders. This power does not exist at present and we feel there is no justification for including it in the statutes at this time. I would remind

Security Intelligence Service

Members of the House that the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressed itself on this particular matter. It has expressed concern that the security force may impinge on the activities of any visiting foreign professor or any foreign student at a Canadian university. We deinitely want to underline that particular concern.

Finally, I would like to discuss the review process. In his submission before the McDonald Commission, the Leader of the New Democratic Party said that there should be a small parliamentary oversight committee. The suggestion was made that this parliamentary oversight committee could be modelled after the American congressional oversight committee. That structure seems to be effective in monitoring these types of activities.

Given these considerations, we feel that our proposal for a series of public hearings across Canada is justified. We think that the proposal has merit since there is going to be such a great impact on the public. We feel that people deserve an opportunity to express their concerns, an opportunity to voice how they feel and an opportunity to give their suggestions to see what needs to be done in this area.

I notice, Sir, that you are nodding your head after signalling that my time has expired. I thank Hon. Members of the House of Commons for giving me this chance to express my concerns on Bill C-9.

Topic:   GOVERNMENT ORDERS
Subtopic:   CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE ACT
Full View Permalink