Debates of Oct. 24th, 1994

Federal Intelligence Agencies

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Saturday, after a cabinet strategy meeting, the Prime Minister tried to minimize the extent of the revelations concerning the spying activities of federal agencies. He said that he was not interested in this kind of thing or in what happened under previous governments, including those under which he served.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us what important piece of news her government has learned lately, which prompted it to give clear instructions putting an end to spying on citizens engaged in legitimate political activities?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, I realize members opposite are looking for an issue. Let me tell them that they are looking in the wrong place.

There is no smoking gun. The Prime Minister has repeated the position of the government, that the service in question has no legal right to spy on any Canadian, including legitimate political parties.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Deputy Prime Minister.

Are we to understand that the instructions the Prime Minister hastily gave this week-end were only aimed at reassuring the public following extremely serious revelations concerning illegal activities on the part of federal intelligence agencies?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, the Prime Minister confirmed, as he did last week, as I did on Friday, as we will undoubtedly do when answering questions tomorrow and the day after, that the CSE does not have the mandate to spy on Canadians. The Prime Minister, true democrat that he is, stressed that no MP, no political party, including separatists, should be spied on. Because he is a real democrat, he is looking forward to meeting the separatists on the battle field, and the real battle field will be the referendum, when they are brave enough to set a date for it.

The Economy

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Institute put it bluntly when it said that the 3 per cent of GDP deficit reduction target signalled the lack of urgency. Many question whether the government will seize the opportunity to get its financial house in order at all.

C. D. Howe, the Globe and Mail , the Financial Post and other commentators speak for a growing contingent that criticize the finance minister for not moving decisively toward the goal of a zero deficit.

The economic growth which Canada temporarily enjoys affords the government a great opportunity to put its fiscal house in order. I ask the finance minister: Will the government abandon its timid deficit reduction target of 3 per cent of GDP in favour of the more ambitious target of eliminating the deficit by the end of its current term in office?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development -Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the C. D. Howe Institute has made a very constructive contribution to the debate. I would only hope the Reform Party might emulate the C. D. Howe Institute and attempt to make a constructive contribution to the debate.

Let me simply say that we are going to stay with our 3 per cent target because it is by far the best way to keep everybody's feet in the fire. As the hon. member knows, our ultimate goal is to eliminate the deficit.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I assure the finance minister that the Reform Party is doing all it can to help him to convince his caucus to move in the right direction and reduce government spending.

The minister's plan to trim the deficit will in three short years add $100 billion to our debt and increase the annual interest payments from $40 billion to $50 billion. If the government cannot do better than that we will be in a disastrous position when the business cycle delivers its next economic downturn, a recession.

Because our economy is not recession proof, is the finance minister willing to risk the economic consequences of going into the next recession with a $25 billion deficit, a $50 billion yearly interest bill and a $630 billion total national debt?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the hon. member opposite watched the presentations last week. He now seems to have demonstrated an understanding of compound interest for which I would congratulate him.

That being said, instead of planning for the next recession, perhaps the hon. member and his party might emulate the C. D. Howe Institute he cited in his preamble and begin to make constructive suggestions on how we might hit the target.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the finance minister knows well we have tabled plans that would help him to accomplish the goal he has asked us to accomplish. We are willing to work constructively.

It took a year for the minister to admit that the Reform Party was on the right track and he was on the wrong track with regard to meeting his wimpy deficit targets. I hope he takes our advice a little more quickly this time.

The minister has set aside a contingency fund of $3 billion for the 1996-97 fiscal year. If the finance minister commits this fund to deficit reduction he will only be halfway to meeting his target.

[The Speaker]

The questions are little long today, probably because it is Monday. I would ask the hon. member to put his question forthwith.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Is the finance minister looking for cuts exclusive of the $3 billion contingency fund he has, or are his deficit reduction goals so timid that he is banking on the contingency fund to meet his deficit reduction target?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec]

Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's question is on page 10 of the grey book. I would suggest that he read it. It is only a paragraph and a half. If he reads the rest of the book I am sure he will find the answers to a number of other questions he raises.

I would like to say one thing. The questioner has said that the Reform Party has tabled its plans so that we might see them. We have given members of the Reform Party an opportunity here in the prebudget debate; they had absolutely nothing to say. They have had the summer and they are now sitting on the finance committee.

The Reform Party has not tabled any plans. It has not given us any suggestions. It has done nothing but engage in empty rhetoric.

Communications Security Establishment

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. The Communications Security Establishment concluded co-operation agreements to exchange information with intelligence services in seven foreign countries. The establishment conducted electronic surveillance of two ministers in Mrs. Thatcher's British government, at the request of Mrs. Thatcher herself.

Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the directives supposedly given last weekend by the Prime Minister also include forbidding the Communications Security Establishment to have others carry out its dirty work of electronically spying on Canadian citizens?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, the member is qualifying his questions on the basis of an uncorroborated book which has already been characterized by the Prime Minister of Britain as claptrap.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us if she checked the accuracy of allegations that the Communications Security Establishment conducted electronic surveillance of two ministers in the British government led by Mrs. Thatcher, and what did the CSE get in return?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, these unfounded allegations were the subject of an analysis by the Prime Minister of Britain who himself characterized them as claptrap.

Public Service

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for renewal in the public service. Will the minister give us a date for the tabling of his public service program review?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the program review is not something for tabling.

The member should have checked what I said at the recent press conference where I indicated exactly what it is. The program review is a series of reviews by a cabinet committee that will make recommendations that will fit into the budgetary process. The program review at present has not yet come to conclusions but we are working to be able to make them within the next few weeks to the Minister of Finance.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on November 5 of last year the minister promised renewal in the public service. In March he launched his program review. It is almost 12 months later and surprise, surprise, there is still no review evident. One year later it is like every other Liberal policy. It has been reviewed, revisited, rehashed and reduced to vague generalities.

The departments have already submitted their workforce adjustment plans to the minister. Will the minister release these departmental plans right now since I believe they will be a significant factor in the upcoming social policy review?

[Marcel Massé, Liberal, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada]

Mr. Speaker, the program review itself is not an input into the social policy review. It is a parallel path.

The member is confusing this with the agency review which so far has permitted us to abolish 21 agencies and more than 275 GIC appointments with the program review which is part of the budgetary process. The budget happens once a year. When one starts reviewing programs for the next budget, obviously one does it right after the previous budget and it is going to last a year.

The member will have to wait until the budget of the Minister of Finance to know the conclusion.

Communications Security Establishment

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister said on a number of occasions that the CSE is neither authorized nor mandated to spy on political figures. Nor was the RCMP authorized to commit crimes in 1970, but this did not stop it from doing so just the same, and under a Liberal regime at that.

We do not want to know whether the CSE is authorized or mandated to do it, but if it did do so. Can the Deputy Prime Minister, from her seat, assure us that it did not? Can she give us this assurance?

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about what happened 24 years ago.

What happened 24 years ago resulted in a royal commission and substantial changes to the Canadian intelligence security service. What is happening today is that the CSE is governed by the laws of Canada, prohibiting it by law from spying on Canadians. I cannot see any clearer than that.

The Prime Minister repeated his assurances on the weekend as I repeated in the House last week. There is absolutely no mandate for the CSE to be engaged in spying on Canadians.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, does the Deputy Prime Minister realize that her very efforts to respond in a roundabout way in order to evade the question, as other government members have, are in themselves an admission of the fact that sovereignist figures in Quebec have indeed been spied on? Otherwise, let us hear her state clearly, from her seat, whether they have or not. Yes or no?

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

[Sheila Copps, Liberal, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment]

Mr. Speaker, whether I state it on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday or Monday, in French or in English, the fact remains that the CSE does not have a mandate to spy on Canadians. I might add for the benefit of the hon. member opposite that, personally, the only spy I have known in the past was Claude Morin.