House of Commons Hansard #100 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was csis.

Topics

HealthOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

The Speaker

Order. I would ask all hon. members, please do not forget I am getting lonely up here again.

HealthOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably aware that during that settlement the Canadian government did intercede on behalf of Canadian women who were involved in the settlement by applying to become a friend of the court. We also have a 1-800 number for Canadian women to call with regard to this issue.

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday I was very much surprised when the Prime Minister said he had not been informed of the commitment his predecessor made with respect to the referendum. I made inquiries, and I later found that before Question Period yesterday, the Prime Minister knew that his predecessor had promised the Government of Quebec he would submit to his government a request to compensate Quebec for referendum expenses.

I would like to know from the government why the Prime Minister did not give this information to the House of Commons yesterday?

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:50 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, I think the present situation is quite clear and has been explained several times in the House. There is no evidence in our files that a commitment was finalized. In the past few days, the Prime Minister got in touch with the former Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, to find out whether there had been a definite commitment, and he asked him to indicate, in writing, what his position was. As soon as we know the former Prime Minister's

position on whether he made a definite commitment, we will act accordingly.

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, my question to the government is quite clear and it is this: Yesterday, the Prime Minister knew, because his predecessor had told him before Question Period, that he had made a commitment to submit Quebec's request to the government. I would like to know why yesterday in this House, the Prime Minister did not share that information with Parliament and why instead, he insinuated there had been some unlawful activity?

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

The Speaker

This question is, if I understand it, directly posed to the Prime Minister who is not in theChamber at this time.

Is it to the Deputy Prime Minister?

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Hamilton East Ontario

Liberal

Sheila Copps LiberalDeputy Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister made no insinuations whatsoever. Today, the only insinuation has come from the hon. member for Sherbrooke. Now, the Prime Minister is waiting for a letter from Brian Mulroney because a lot is said on the telephone. We want to see the truth in writing, and that is what we are waiting for. The Prime Minister said that as soon as he sees a commitment by the federal government in writing, he will act on that commitment. That is exactly what he said yesterday in the House.

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Liberal

Tony Ianno Liberal Trinity—Spadina, ON

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Some Canadians have the wrong impression that immigrants take jobs and abuse our social security system. I have serious concerns about the growing backlash against immigrants and refugees.

What is the minister doing to address these concerns and to inform the Canadian public about the real and positive contributions that immigrants do make to Canadian society?

ImmigrationOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

York West Ontario

Liberal

Sergio Marchi LiberalMinister of Citizenship and Immigration

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the question which is a good question, because sometimes we allow mythology to wrap itself around this policy we call immigration. Rather than point to government, we should perhaps look at the study that was released by the Clarke Institute this week, a study of 1,300 former Vietnamese boat people spanning some 10 years.

It found individuals who were a tremendous success story. One out of every five started a business; 99 per cent of them became Canadian citizens; 7.3 per cent used the social system rather than the 10 per cent of the rest of Canadians.

What this paints is a distinction between fact and fiction. Hopefully that lesson is not lost on these customers who continue to spin mythology around immigration.

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

2:55 p.m.

Lac-Saint-Jean Québec

Bloc

Lucien Bouchard BlocLeader of the Opposition

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Prime Minister was supposed to be in the House today. That is the information we were given. However, at the beginning of the sitting, we were advised he would be late and, with your consent, we agreed to wait with our questions. Since he is not here, I will have to put a question to the Deputy Prime Minister, following the answer she gave the hon. member for Sherbrooke. I realize we do not have enough time, so I will ask only one question. But do not worry, we will get you next time around!

Am I to understand from the Deputy Prime Minister's reply to a question from the hon. member for Sherbrooke that the Prime Minister was aware, as a result of a telephone conversation he had with Mr. Mulroney, that the latter had promised to treat Quebec equitably and compensate it for its referendum expenses, and that the Prime Minister will not take Mr. Mulroney, who is an honourable man, at his word and wants to see this confirmed in writing?

1992 ReferendumOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Hull—Aylmer Québec

Liberal

Marcel Massé LiberalPresident of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada

Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister spoke to Mr. Mulroney, they agreed that Mr. Mulroney would send him a reply in writing, stating his position on the existence of an agreement between the Government of Quebec and the federal government.

That is what the Prime Minister stated in the House, and the situation has not changed.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Ali Hassan Mwinyi, President of the United Republic of Tanzania.

I wish also to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Geoff Smith, Minister for Lands, Queensland, Australia.

Presence In The GalleryOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

September 29th, 1994 / 3 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Gauthier Bloc Roberval, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Government House Leader to indicate what the business of the House will be for the next few days.

Business Of The HouseOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Windsor West Ontario

Liberal

Herb Gray LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will continue with the Bloc opposition day. Tomorrow we will begin by returning to the debate on Bill C-22 regarding Pearson airport, followed by second reading of Bill C-52, the government services and public works reorganization bill.

On Monday we will begin with second reading of Bill C-53, the Canadian heritage reorganization bill, followed by Bill C-52 if that was not completed on Friday. We will follow this with Bill C-42, the miscellaneous amendments to the Criminal Code.

On Tuesday and Wednesday of next week the business will be in the following order. We will begin with second reading of Bill C-51, the Canada Grains Act, followed by second reading of Bill C-47, the foreign affairs reorganization bill.

If the House has not already completed Bills C-52 and C-42 we will then turn to them in the order mentioned. We will then return to other debates already begun but not completed in an order that we will consult on with the other parties.

On Thursday and Friday of next week we are proposing that a take note debate on the initiative of the government be held on the discussion paper on social security reform which is to be tabled, I believe, next Wednesday. This is to enable members to make their views known in this important, ongoing national discussion.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a point of order on two matters. I also want to mention, since it just happened, that after Question Period, you called the usual Thursday question, but I always thought that after Question Period, Questions of Privilege and Points of Order were called first.

I just mention this in passing. It is not a point of order but I think it is important to bring this up, because we have certain traditions and customs.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The Chair recognizes members as items are called. I did not see anyone else. If the hon. member is referring to himself, I did not see him, except when the hon. member for Roberval was speaking. That is why I got back to him, but I am very much aware of the Standing Orders of this House.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I realize it may sometimes be difficult to see this far, but it is all part of what we expect the Chair to be able to do. That is why I sent you a note, advising you that I wished to rise on a point of order.

I wanted to raise the following matter. During Question Period, you rose twice to ask to whom members were directing their questions. To my knowledge-and my memory is not infallible-when a member of the opposition puts a question, it is necessarily directed to the government. He addresses the Chair, in other words, he must address the government through the Chair. As for the particular person to whom the question is directed, that person is indicated only as a matter of courtesy.

I am merely pointing out what I assume to be the usual custom in this House, since the government is perfectly free to reply through any member of Cabinet.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

The hon. member is absolutely right. There is no doubt about that. The second time was indeed a mistake and I apologize. If that was the purpose of your point of order, you are absolutely right that when a question is put by a member, that question is directed to the government. I agree with that, if that was the purpose of your point of order.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Jean Charest Progressive Conservative Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may finish my comments, since there was another matter I wished to raise. You may have noticed that my question was directed to the Prime Minister. Like other members in this House, I had understood the Prime Minister was to be present during Question Period. That is why I directed my question to him. Subsequently, you said that the Prime Minister was not in the House.

I must admit this bothers me, and I will explain. We also have a Standing Order that is well-known in this House, which prohibits anyone from drawing attention to the absence of other members. A Standing Order that is usually observed.

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Dear colleague, you are absolutely right. I was at fault and I apologize. It will not happen again, and I accept your comments in the spirit in which they were intended.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:05 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, my discourse was interrupted by Question Period. I will attempt to pick up roughly where we left off.

We were describing before we broke for Question Period the request of the Official Opposition for a royal commission and it was my view at that time, and it still is, that is an ill advised request.

We were discussing that in Canada we have statute law that oversees and creates CSIS. We have the Security Intelligence Review Committee that reviews the work of CSIS. We have a justice committee and a subcommittee on security and intelligence which looks at the same area. We also have the Solicitor General who stands in this House, responsible to Parliament and to the people of Canada for all of the matters under his ministry, including CSIS.

Why do we need a fourth or a fifth level of scrutiny or inquiry? Why do we need a royal commission? This House through its justice committee in the last Parliament in reviewing the CSIS act made 117 recommendations. Only two of the 117 recommendations were adopted by the government at that time. That was regrettable.

Thank heaven for small mercies. Two were adopted. One which was not accepted by government was the creation of a committee or subcommittee that would work in this area of security and intelligence. The government basically said to Parliament it does not want one. The justice committee said beg your pardon, excuse us, but there will be one.

All of the parties on the justice committee unanimously agreed to create the subcommittee on national security. That particular subcommittee was reborn in this Parliament. That provides Parliament with a particularly precise window with the ability to look into this area, the subject of debate today.

One of the reasons we believed the subcommittee was necessary was that although the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC, works for Parliament and for Canadians on their behalf, the linkages between SIRC and Parliament were not strong. SIRC makes one annual report each year and can make section 54 reports to the Solicitor General whenever it is deemed appropriate.

Those section 54 reports do not come directly to Parliament. I think I am correct in saying the reports do not ever get to Parliament. The procedures have not been live and green. As a result there needs to be a better linkage between SIRC and Parliament.

That is one of the reasons we have created the subcommittee, to provide that linkage, that relationship, between the oversight or review mechanism that SIRC is and Parliament with its general oversight mechanism for all of government.

I want to discuss the issue of potential cost of royal commissions. I think it was adequately addressed by one or two colleagues in the House. Some of the more recent royal commissions have cost between $9 million and $25 million per item. That is a lot of toast.

From my perspective the existing mechanisms of the statute of the Solicitor General, of SIRC and the subcommittee are able to cover the field and adequately address the questions that have been raised. If I am wrong then someone might be able to make a case for a royal commission, but at the moment I do not believe I am wrong. Time will tell. The next year or six months will tell. We will see how well SIRC, the subcommittee, the justice committee and members in this House deal with this particular set of issues.

Let us deal with the justice committee and the subcommittee on national security. For members here and for Canadians I want to acknowledge the resources that will be used as an alternative to a royal commission are already bought and paid for by the taxpayers. We are adequately resourced. We have research capability and we have the power to compel attendance. We have a subcommittee which is working in a relatively non-partisan fashion and a justice committee which is working in a relatively non-partisan fashion. I believe that we can do the job that Parliament has set out for us in the standing orders.

As I say, we have the resources. We have the power to compel. The wording of that power is called the power to call for persons and papers. That is basically the power to compel attendance and to require an answer. It is part of the law of Parliament. The law of Parliament has been here ever since this House was built and this country was formed. The law of Parliament began developing back when the barons forced King John, in the Magna Carta of 1215, to submit to a people's Parliament. They took some authority from the king. The Bill of Rights of 1689 is another large slice of authority for Parliament derived from the king.

We have the power to compel attendance. The power has been described with some derogation as an absolute power. I will not get into details on that now but it is an effective power.

We in the House want Canadians to know that we will not hesitate to use the authority that Canadian citizens have given us if we need to use them. I can point respectfully to the mace that sits on the table which is, as a symbol, the repository of every one of the powers and authorities that Canadians have given all of us in the House.

What are the allegations that the Official Opposition would like to see investigated? There are two categories. First is the allegation that an alleged informant of CSIS had involved himself in some fashion in intelligence gathering or other with a CBC journalist, in another instance with some activities of the Reform Party of Canada, in another instance in an attempt to obtain an address list of members of the Canadian Jewish Congress and in another instance, potentially some intelligence gathering in relation to the Canadian Union of Postal Workers.

Those are four categorized items for which allegations are being investigated as we speak by the Security Intelligence Review Committee which has three staff permanently working on them.

The second issue has to do with security of classified documents. Essentially put the question is: How did a box of allegedly classified documents make its way out of a secure environment and into the basement of a residence somewhere in Ottawa and on to the pages of a major newspaper? That is a very reasonable question. That particular question is not one that the Security Intelligence Review Committee would ordinarily be able to look at, but it is one that the parliamentary subcommittee can and will look at.

There are other related questions, hypothetical allegations, what ifs. Those questions have been asked publicly and the subcommittee will do its job as will SIRC. The subcommittee will consult with SIRC as it goes about its job and vice versa. My colleagues on the subcommittee will inquire into all of these questions over the next few weeks.

Finally, in my view a royal commission at this point is absolutely unnecessary, ridiculously expensive and procedurally redundant in the extreme. I want to assure members in the House and Canadians that colleagues who are on the subcommittee will deal with the issues in a responsible way, in a rational way, in a manner that does not duplicate and waste resources and in a way that we hope will continue the faith of Canadians in the way Parliament works and in the way CSIS and SIRC operate.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Bonaventure—Îles-De-La-Madeleine Québec

Liberal

Patrick Gagnon LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General

Mr. Speaker, we have been told that the cost of a royal commission of inquiry would be in the order of $9 to $25 million. We are a government striving to limit costs and I believe that the people have demonstrated, again and again, that they want better control of spending.

Since a royal commission of inquiry like the one proposed by the opposition would cost between $9 and $25 million, I am curious to find out the real cost of the sub-committee chaired by my colleague, and I would like to know whether this sub-committee can exercise substantially the same authority as a royal commission?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Derek Lee Liberal Scarborough—Rouge River, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

On the question of cost, as Canadians know and members know, every member of Parliament is paid a salary. Each committee and subcommittee will have a clerk, a researcher and such other staff as the committee may need but within a budget that comes from the House of Commons, all of which is relatively closely controlled these days.

The cost of the members of Parliament, the cost of the offices, the cost of the office space-we are not going to go out and lease a floor of an office building somewhere in Ottawa. We already have committee rooms that will be put to use-are being absorbed almost exclusively at this point in the existing budgets of the House of Commons.

In terms of the powers and the mandate of the subcommittee, or any committee of the House for that matter, those mandates are primarily set out in the standing orders of the House, but they are very general. The mandate of the subcommittee in this instance is more than adequate to cover the subject area that we are dealing with.

As I stated earlier, the power to compel attendance, the power to require disclosure are virtually absolute. I will not say they are absolute because there are very few absolutes left any more in law and politics. They are virtually and precisely as great or as small as the members of the House will them to be in their work, in committee or on the floor of the House.

There is plenty of opportunity, mandate, power and resources to do the job.