Val Meredith

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 5th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General did not see the report on television last night. I hope he takes a look at a replay of it. It stated that Grant Bristow had apparently committed illegal activities and that his CSIS handler had obstructed the police investigation.

Will the minister confirm whether illegal activities were committed and advise the House of the actions that were taken by CSIS and the previous Solicitor General in response to this report?

[Child Sex Offenders, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to and in support of this motion. I believe that my hon. colleague from Brampton is introducing an issue of great concern to all Canadians.

I know that when I raised my children I did not have to worry or I never gave any thought as to whether they were outside in my yard playing by themselves, whether they were at the corner park or whether they were at the hospital grounds playing. I did not feel a need to be watching over them every minute. I find this attitude has certainly changed over the last number of years. Parents are terrified to let their children out of their sight. They walk them to school and they sit and watch them play at a playground.

My hon. colleague from Brampton has indicated that Canadians want something to happen to those people who prey on children. I believe that what she wants is to get them and to keep them off the streets so that our children are free again to wander without parents watching over every move.

The government missed a golden opportunity with Bill C-45. It could have incorporated this in that bill. I feel that it did lose an opportunity there. I would hope when the committee is reviewing it gives consideration to the concern that has been raised in the House this afternoon.

I feel Bill C-45 does eliminate the need to prove that sex offenders who victimize children have to commit serious harm to be considered dangerous offenders. I feel that is a good thing.

When it comes to the issue of post-sentence detention this government decided to avoid the issue by making it a subject for provincial health authorities to deal with. I know from an incident that happened in our province of B.C. not too long ago that the provincial health authorities do not have the ability to keep dangerous offenders off the street.

We saw a dangerous offender walk away from a provincial hospital because the two guards did not have the authority to stop him. I do not think that is what Canadians are looking for.

I think there is a better way and that is to enable the National Parole Board to apply to the courts for a dangerous offender designation. That is what my private member's bill, C-240, tried to do. I disagree with my hon. colleague. I feel that Bill C-240 does allow some flexibility and would address the problem of pedophiles.

It allows the correction and parole board members to apply to the appropriate provincial attorney general and to initiate a dangerous offender application for those inmates who they believe will reoffend, not necessarily just pedophiles but also adult sexual offenders, but it does include pedophiles who they feel will reoffend.

Like Bill C-45 it also removes the need to prove the likelihood of causing serious harm in the case of pedophiles. This is exactly the type of legislation the member for Brampton is looking for in her motion.

Unfortunately, the two members of the Liberal caucus who spoke to Bill C-240 during its first hour of debate did not speak in favour of it. I know the member is sincere in her efforts to motivate the government to take action on this matter. Perhaps she can speak to her colleagues and reconsider her own belief that by passing C-240 it would allow these changes to be made possible. I believe that Bill C-240 would accomplish that which she is seeking.

Over the summer months I had the opportunity to tour a number of penitentiaries in British Columbia. One of them, Mountain Institution in Agassiz, has an inmate population that is largely sex offenders. I had an opportunity to discuss one of the ongoing treatment plans. The five month program is extensive but only works on the outside if the released inmate is under community supervision.

The therapist advised me there was one situation where the parole officer observed that one of the parolees was falling back into his crime cycle. It was only because he was a parolee and under community supervision that they were able to revoke his parole and reincarcerate him. This action probably prevented another sexual assault from occurring.

On the other hand we have a case like Larry Fisher who ironically was released from the same prison earlier this year. He was convicted of raping seven women. He was deemed to be so dangerous that he spent his entire sentence behind bars. He served 23 years before he walked out free because he had fulfilled his full sentence.

Larry Fisher is currently out there with absolutely no community supervision. One day he is an inmate whom the experts consider too dangerous to be released and the next day he is a completely free man. There is something wrong with a system that prevents society from protecting itself from the worst type of sexual behaviour.

I agree completely with the member for Brampton that the National Parole Board has to have the ability to keep dangerous pedophiles off the streets of Canada. Experts on pedophilia agree that the chances of ever completely curing a pedophile are remote. Convicted pedophiles and other dangerous offenders should be kept incarcerated as long as they pose a threat to reoffend. If this turns out to be an indefinite sentence, so be it. We should feel no obligation to release any dangerous offender who is likely to reoffend.

Even when we reach the point at which the experts believe that the chances to reoffend are low, there must be community supervision. This way if a parole officer believes there is a likelihood of an offender committing another sex crime his parole can be revoked. For those offenders who have shown that they have adapted well and are of little risk, the reporting conditions of their parole could be minimal.

What we need is a bill that would keep pedophiles and other dangerous offenders incarcerated as long as they are likely to reoffend and a bill that would provide for lengthy post-incarceration community supervision to ensure that once these individuals are released their activities on the outside are closely monitored. This combination will provide society with the greatest amount of protection.

I repeat that this legislation can be found in Bill C-240, my private member's bill. I respectfully ask the member for Brampton and all those who support her motion to likewise support my private member's bill which could bring this motion to fruition.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in the last two petitions the petitioners pray that Parliament will act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in two petitions the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the human rights code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination that undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present six petitions to the House this morning.

In two of the petitions the petitioners pray that Parliament will ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no change in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to react to comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc who said that she is afraid these secrets are in hidden boxes, locked in drawers and cabinets. I think the reality is that these secret documents are passed around by staffers. They are taken home. They are left in open boxes in basements. We should be concerned about the lack of security of classified documents.

My question for the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada is this. Is the hon. member aware of how these documents are classified?

The hon. member made a comment that he does not want secrets for secret's sake. How are highly classified documents labelled as such? Does the hon. member know?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague from the Bloc why he is not prepared to give SIRC an opportunity to prove it is incompetent of coming up with a report that is satisfactory to us.

The hon. member and probably most other members in the House know how I feel about the make-up of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It is not a make-up of which I approve. It is not a process of which I approve. However I feel we should allow it to do its job and then judge whether or not the report is adequate and fulfils the needs of the Canadian public to know the facts.

Why is the hon. member unprepared and unwilling to let SIRC complete the report, then sit in judgment and ask for a further commission to be established because the committee has not done its job rather than accusing it of not doing its job when it is not given the chance to do it.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased to hear the hon. Solicitor General acknowledge that he will take into consideration my comments about how much of the report should be made public. I hope he notes that the only exclusions I made were the names of additional sources other than Grant Bristow. I feel all else should be made public.

My concern is that some of the legislation he may be looking at to see how much flexibility he has is outdated. I would like some assurance from the hon. minister that he will use some flexibility in the interpretation of these outdated pieces of legislation so that he is not restricted and bound by classifications of material that do not apply in this case.

I would like some assurance from the hon. minister that he will be open minded in the interpretation of this legislation to allow a more open process.

While I have the opportunity I would also like to ask for the minister's assurance that he will support the efforts of the subcommittee on national security to further investigate this issue beyond that which SIRC can do. I hope the minister will give full co-operation to and persuade government members of this House to support the subcommittee in its efforts to get to the bottom of this.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue. I am a bit surprised by the fascination of members of the Bloc with this case. They appear to be very disappointed that they were not the organization or the political party with which CSIS was involved. It seems to be a clear case of CSIS envy.

The attitude of the Bloc must be questioned. The original motion shows an inclination to condemn the government for the refusal to initiate a royal commission on the illegal activities of CSIS rather than the allegation. I think the Bloc gets ahead of itself in this particular matter.

I have often listened to the Bloc accuse the Reform Party of using wild west justice and of being awfully tough on crime, but at least we believe people are innocent until they are proven guilty. The Bloc seems already to be assuming the guilt of CSIS before in fact it has been proven as such.

There are a number of allegations out there and I have made more than a few of them myself, but I am not aware at this time of any evidence that CSIS was involved in illegal activities.

There is a significant amount of evidence however that someone was involved in wrongdoing. But was it CSIS that was responsible for this wrongdoing, or was it Grant Bristow who was responsible, or was it the previous government?

How can the Bloc accuse CSIS of committing illegal activities when the investigations are presently being conducted? I am not the biggest fan of the Security Intelligence Review Committee and that is quite obvious. I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt until the report is tabled.

SIRC is actively investigating the role of CSIS in this issue. I know because I sat in on a SIRC interview. I know it is looking into it. I know it has spoken to a number of officials within the Reform Party. I know it has spoken to a number of people who have pertinent information about this case.

There is no reason to doubt the efficiency of the SIRC investigation. However, once the investigation is over we will get the report. At that time the pressure will be on committee members as to whether or not their report is accurate and whether their report is enough. Their integrity will be at stake at that time.

If there is evidence of wrongdoing by the previous government, will the Conservative members of SIRC enthusiastically pursue this information in their report? As the saying goes, only time will tell. I am encourage, however, that SIRC members have said they want the report to be as public as possible.

I am still concerned about what definition SIRC uses for national security and the reasons for national security. I will explain why I am concerned. On May 10, SIRC appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. When discussing the role of CSIS in technology transfer it mentioned it was limited to eight key sectors. When asked to identify those eight key sectors, the response was: "We are not at liberty to identify those eight key sectors".

Exactly one week earlier the director of CSIS, Mr. Ray Protti, had appeared before the same justice committee. He too chose to talk about technology transfer. He stated that the investigation was: "in those high technology areas like aerospace, nuclear, biochemical and telecommunications".

Here is an example of where the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was being more open than its review body. This certainly does not bode well for a truly open and public report. However we must give SIRC the opportunity to come up with the report. Its report will then go to the Solicitor General who I understand will determine what will be released.

The Solicitor General has assured the House that it is his objective: "to make as much as possible the report public". He went on to state that he would seek legal advice to help him make up his mind on how much he could make public.

I would like to give him a little advice now. Everything should be released except the information about CSIS sources other than Grant Bristow. There is no reason why the entire issue cannot be discussed openly.

While no one has ever accused members of the Heritage Front of being Rhodes Scholars, it is safe to assume even they have figured out that CSIS was investigating them. Likewise I think it is a safe bet to assume they now think Grant Bristow was a source. There really is nothing left to hid. Why would we even try?

If the SIRC report that the Solicitor General releases to the public is not complete then the credibility of CSIS, of SIRC, of the minister and of the government will all suffer. Yes, CSIS needs a certain amount of secrecy to operate efficiently, but it cannot operate without the confidence of the Canadian people.

The release of the report is all about confidence. If it is thorough and completely public, confidence in CSIS will be there even if CSIS is guilty of some minor indiscretions. However, if the report is heavily censored in the interest of national security there will be little public confidence even if CSIS is vindicated. Any evidence of any significant censoring of SIRC's report will automatically be viewed as a cover-up. If this is the case, not only will the Reform Party be joining the Bloc in a call for a royal commission; we will be leading the demand.

The accusations that have been made are extremely serious, striking at the very heart of the democratic process. To us in Reform the most important question that must be answered is: Did the previous government use CSIS for partisan political purposes? At the very least we have a Conservative Solicitor General who was aware of the efforts of the Heritage Front to infiltrate the Reform Party and he chose not to advise the Reform Party of such.

Some may ask if he should have. I asked somebody who should know. I asked Jean-Jacques Blais, a former Liberal Solicitor General and one of the first members of SIRC. Mr. Blais replied that if he had the information when he was Solicitor General he would have notified someone in the Reform Party. When asked why Mr. Lewis did not, Mr. Blais said he could not answer for the previous government.

It will be interesting when the former Solicitor General appears before the subcommittee on national security in October to answer this question himself. However there are questions that CSIS must answer itself.

Who made the final decision permitting Bristow to attend the Reform Party meetings? I cannot imagine the source handler himself making this type of decision. Just the mere fact that Bristow, publicly known to be a member of a white supremacist neo-Nazi organization, showed up at a Reform Party rally had a detrimental effect on the party. CSIS officials must have known that his mere presence could have a negative effect on the party.

Since he would not have been sent there without high level approval, we need to know who approved his attendance and why. We need to know why Grant Bristow urged Heritage Front members to take out Reform Party memberships. We need to know why Grant Bristow even paid the $10 membership fee for some of these Heritage Front members. We need to know why Grant Bristow was so intent on getting Heritage Front members into the Reform Party when he refused to take out a membership himself.

We also need to know if any of this had to do with Bristow's allegiance to the Progressive Conservative Party as indicated by his work on the Hon. Otto Jelinek's 1988 campaign.

These are the types of answers that we are expecting in the SIRC report and we will not be satisfied unless these questions are definitively answered. We will also want the answers to some questions like why did Wolfgang Droege frequently show up at Reform Party meetings after he had been expelled from the party? Why did he just come and sit at these meetings without trying to say anything, without trying to distribute any of his literature and without trying to make any contacts with people in the crowd? Why did he usually have a local Toronto television crew there to film him sitting in the audience at these Reform Party meetings? Most important, why did Wolfgang Droege appear to have some money on him when he was attending all of these meetings?

Let us not stop with Bristow or Droege. Less than two weeks ago another Heritage Front member, Max French, announced that he was running for mayor of Scarborough. At his press conference he proudly announced he was a member of both the Heritage Front and the Reform Party; a proud member of the Heritage Front, yes, but he certainly was not a proud member of the Reform Party.

After the expulsion of other Heritage Front members from the Reform Party, Max French stated that Reformers were race traitors and would be lined up against the wall with the rest of them when the revolution came. He does not sound like an enthusiastic member of any party when those kinds of statements are made. Why did he keep his Reform membership?

It is answers to these questions that SIRC must provide. The Solicitor General must release these answers if it is to maintain any credibility.

I mentioned earlier that what is at stake here is the entire democratic system. Let me explain to the House why I say that. I have talked to a number of Reform candidates from southern Ontario. They advised that they had great difficulty overcoming the smear campaign that Reformers were racist. This campaign was led by the Conservative Party. In four ridings, none of which had a sitting Liberal MP, the Reform Party finished second by less than 5,000 votes. If just 10 voters per poll in those ridings had voted Reform instead of Liberal but did not because they were worried about the racist smears we would be sitting in a very different House today.

The consequences of the racist smear campaign on Reformers are enormous and questions must be answered. With regard to the investigation into CSIS, we are prepared to wait for SIRC to complete its investigations and to make its report. We are prepared to wait for this report to be filed with the minister. We are also prepared to wait until the minister makes his report public. However, what we are not prepared to do is to wait for a cover-up.

If the SIRC report that is made public does not answer our questions we will then be more than happy to join with the member from Bellechasse in calling for a royal commission.

There are a number of other issues that do not fall under SIRC's responsibilities. There are a number of other issues in this controversy that have to be brought to light. Those issues are the handling of documents by ministers' aides within the former Solicitor General's office, an antiquated Official Secrets Act and the way it is enforced. The way that government information is classified leaves a lot of room for discussion.

These issues can and will be examined by the subcommittee on national security. While we have similar concerns as the Bloc about the political make-up of SIRC, the make-up of the subcommittee does reflect the current Parliament. It is the subcommittee on national security that should first deal with these issues of classifying information, of handling high security documents and of reviewing the Official Secrets Act.

If the subcommittee cannot resolve these issues in this House then another royal commission into Canada's security intelligence service would be warranted.

First this House must make every effort to get to the bottom of this to avert the additional cost to the Canadian taxpayers of a royal commission. We have the vehicles in place. We have CSIS doing an internal investigation. We have SIRC doing a watchdog report and we have the national security subcommittee to investigate it.

What we do need is to have the will to be fully accountable to the Canadian people, for only in being fully accountable will we maintain the support and the confidence of the Canadian people in the job that we are trying to do.

[Petitions, September 29th, 1994]

Finally, Madam Speaker, I have two petitions in which the petitioners do not want Parliament to rescind an act of Parliament or the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the right to die, on euthanasia.