Debates of April 30th, 1998

Governement Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Canadian Security Intelligence Service

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the public report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service for 1997.

I ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

National Security

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present to parliament the solicitor general's annual statement on national security, having tabled today the 1997 public report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

The public report provides parliamentarians and the public with a review of the global and domestic security environment. Canadians value safety and security. Whether it is defined from the health care, environmental, consumer protection or law enforcement perspective, Canadians see public safety as a key component on how we define ourselves as Canadians.

Public safety is my mission; it is the mission of the Department of the Solicitor General.

Whether it be pursuing the goal of more effective corrections, fighting organized crime or maintaining national security, CSIS, the RCMP, the correctional service and the National Parole Board are dedicated to public safety.

Today I want to focus on the efforts the government is making to protect Canada's interests and to safeguard our citizens from threats to their safety and security. As the CSIS public report underlines, the 1990s have been a decade of great change dominated by increased instability worldwide and the escalating use of violence for political and ideological purposes.

Terrorism, including state sponsored terrorism, is an all too frequent occurrence. CSIS has a mandate to forewarn and advise the government on such activities, providing threat assessments and helping to ensure effective consultation and information sharing with appropriate agencies.

CSIS, the RCMP and other federal departments work together to investigate and monitor the threat of international terrorist activity in a common mission to protect Canadians and Canada's interests here and abroad.

Canadians can expect to see a range of tough measures against those who abuse our democratic system and our institutions to further their deadly aims. I will outline some of the measures.

Canada is a signatory to the United Nations convention on the suppression of terrorist bombing offences and the convention on the safety of UN and associated personnel. The government plans to introduce legislation to ratify these conventions.

We want to make it much more difficult for terrorist groups to raise funds in Canada. This is a global as well as domestic problem and we are working with other G-8 countries to help develop approaches to handle this problem while not impinging upon legitimate humanitarian fundraising activities.

We also want to make it much more difficult for terrorists to enter Canada and to abuse our immigration process to avoid justified removal from the country. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is developing proposals on these issues as part of her broader reform.

My colleague, the Minister of Justice, has announced that she will bring major amendments to our laws on extradition to help us better meet our international commitments and to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for criminals around the world who want to avoid justice.

I reiterate the commitment I made in this House last November to introduce legislation that would help the RCMP and other law enforcement agencies to combat money laundering. While these mechanisms are designed to counter organized crime, we anticipate there could also be benefits for counterterrorism efforts.

The RCMP and CSIS play key roles in national security. These two agencies of my portfolio are marshalling all the resources in a co-operative and integrated fight against threats to our national security. CSIS has a key role to play in exchanging information with other countries and providing relevant criminal information and strategic analysis to Canadian law enforcement.

Several countries are active in trying to steal leading edge technology from Canada. CSIS has a mandate and a responsibility to investigate these matters.

In a world driven by economic advantage we do not expect to see such activities diminish and CSIS will continue to develop co-operative arrangements with other security and intelligence services in pursuit of our security objectives.

The government is studying the issue of creating modern legislation to replace the badly outdated and overbroad official secrets act to address the threats Canada faces today.

I welcome the opportunity as well to brief the recently created special committee of the other place that will be examining our counterterrorism arrangements.

In this brief canvass of national security I have emphasized that the global situation is unsettled, often dangerous and hence has important implications for Canadian public safety. We are working hard on both the domestic and international fronts. Canada will be front and centre at the Birmingham summit of the G-8 next month to deal with threats to Canada's national security and our national interests.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments by the hon. Solicitor General of Canada.

In the four or five minutes I have I would like to touch on a number of issues. It is reported that we have a huge number of modern day war criminals in this country. The greatest threat to any nation is always the problems within a nation. The threats from outside our nation when they become part of our nation are the greatest threats, whether criminal activity, harbouring those who are wanted for acts of genocide or other heinous crimes in their home countries and who are now living in our society, or whether it is those who are here because they want to steal the secrets we have, whether military, economic or industrial.

Until we strengthen our institutions we have designed through a democratic manner over the years to ward off these threats we are just speaking idle words.

I welcome the words of the hon. solicitor general but we must back those up by strengthening CSIS not only in numbers but also wherever it is practical and possible to give it greater legislative powers. We must strengthen the RCMP and not continue to whittle away at its budget. We are under strengthed. We must reinforce that. We must also stop allowing our military to rust out in the manner that has occurred over the last 10 or 15 years or more.

We must strengthen those institutions that protect national security, our economic security and our societal security from those external forces that once they become internal forces pose the most dire threat to the stability of this country in all these areas.

This government had better be prepared to reinforce the budgets of these institutions that we rely on to protect our security, the security of our industries and the high tech development occurring, to protect those secrets from encroachment and incursion by forces outside of our country that have almost an open door to move across our borders into our country and set up their espionage organizations to take these secrets from our very high tech society in this country and use them against us.

I welcome the comments of the solicitor general. Let us see some action behind those words. He can rest assured that he will receive support from the Reform Party caucus of Canada.

[Richard Marceau, Bloc, Charlesbourg, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in this debate.

In tabling the 1997 public report of CSIS and delivering his annual statement on global and domestic security, the minister reflects the government's desire to remain transparent and accountable regarding the management of security intelligence issues.

Because all procedures used by CSIS cannot be disclosed, we should hope that security intelligence is gathered in a legitimate fashion. Of course, the minister stands up for his department, but troubling facts are regularly reported by the press.

In fact, how can the minister reconcile the statement he just made with the following facts?

On April 4, based on the contents of a 24-page SIRC document dated July 18, 1997, the Toronto Star reported that CSIS had abused and endangered a vulnerable refugee claimant by promising him asylum if he spied on fellow Tamils. While he had not yet gone through the regular immigration process, CSIS held up the possibility of his being admitted to Canada in exchange for his co-operation.

In addition, this SIRC report follows up on the fact that, in 1996, a person by the name of Thalaya Singam Sivakumar went public with his story. Mr. Sivakumar claimed that he worked for CSIS for five years because the agency promised he would be allowed to stay in Canada. But in 1994, CSIS broke off its relationship with Sivakumar and it now claims it never promised him anything.

The same SIRC report indicates that CSIS had intervened in the immigration process in other cases in order to recruit informants. A former high ranking member of CSIS, Ian Macewen, who headed the counterterrorist section for seven years said that CSIS tried to help its better informants. He added that, on four occasions during his years of service, CSIS intervened in the immigration process to obtain immigrant status for such people.

The Toronto Star , once again, reported on April 15 that another refugee claimant had accused CSIS of trying to force him into spying. The individual in question, Mr. Singh, comes from India, and more specifically the state of Punjab. His story is dangerously like the preceding one. He made a formal complaint against CSIS last month.

In the light of these facts, we are forced to condemn this practice of CSIS and request that these matters be studied thoroughly.

The minister announced earlier that a special Senate committee would review Canada's antiterrorist mechanisms. I would remind him that senators are appointed and do not represent the public. As they are accountable to no one, I question their ability to properly represent the concerns of Canadians.

I would ask the minister to replace the special Senate committee he wants to set up with a committee of the House of Commons.

[Peter Mancini, NDP, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party.

I welcome the minister's statement on national security. I think he will recognize and agree with me that this is of importance to every single Canadian in every community of this country.

Sometimes we are left with the impression that terrorism and organized crime are problems that affect only the major urban centres in this country, and particularly those on the coasts where the importation of narcotics by certain groups is of real concern. In Montreal the existence of biker gangs that engage in warfare are of concern.

Many of the root causes of crime and the issues that cause people to be concerned about safety in their communities can be traced back to the influence of organized crime. It is something that every Canadian, whether they live in Ingonish, a rural community in my riding, or Winnipeg where there are concerns about gangs, or Vancouver where there are concerns about the ports, ought to take an interest in. I am sure they will watch the movements of the minister on the issue of organized crime.

It is an issue that requires national attention. In the last year, as I have indicated, we have realized the biker gangs and the organized crime which is present at Canada's ports. I have raised these issues in the House on many occasions. There are allegations of infiltration and involvement in the ports.

We know that Canada has been placed on the United States list of nations about which they are most concerned in terms of money laundering. This is something that this country ought to take seriously. I welcome the solicitor general looking into that because it is something that we have to be very careful of.

The increased globalization, the increased freedom of capital to flow from one nation to another, with limited checks and balances, has opened the door for organized crime to infiltrate this country. The opening of the ports, the reduction of tariffs and the cutbacks of police agencies that can properly monitor what happens in this country and what goods come in have given more power to organized crime.

I welcome the initiative. We need to allow our police agencies to become technologically advanced and ensure that they have the proper and the necessary tools to fight organized crime which is becoming increasingly technologically advanced in this country.

I welcome the comment that the Minister of Justice will bring in laws on extradition. I will not hold my breath, but I look forward to hearing them.

On behalf of the New Democratic Party I welcome the initiative. We are concerned about organized crime in this country, as are most citizens. We look forward to the dialogue.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in response to the solicitor general's statement on national security.

I am also pleased that this forum is being utilized by the government and that we had the opportunity to hear a ministerial statement on such an important area. It is a very timely appearance by the solicitor general.

As has been mentioned by previous members, there has been a great deal of talk in this area. The solicitor general has repeated his pledge from last summer and again last fall to introduce new legislation on money laundering and cross-border currency controls. The fact remains that to date we have not seen that. There has been a great deal of consultation, which again I believe is a very important part of the process, but I would encourage the solicitor general to act on these initiatives.

Canadians are concerned about justice and security issues. They require more than just rhetoric. They require concrete action.

We have heard a great deal about the intention to crack down on money laundering and cross-border currency controls since September of this year. To the government's credit it did pass anti-organized crime legislation in the spring of 1997. However, like many of these initiatives, I would suggest it was not a full effort. There continue to be huge loopholes in the federal legislation, particularly when we look at what Canada has done compared to other countries.

As an example I would cite the U.S. State Department's report, “International Narcotics Control Strategy”, which singled out Canada as an easy target for drug related and other types of money laundering. The report goes on to compare Canada to countries like Columbia, Brazil and the Cayman Islands as countries which are open to money laundering and places to hide illegal money.

That report identified the fact that Canada's international position is not glowing. Lack of federal legislation leaves our country open to this type of illegal activity.

This, in light of some of the other developments that have happened in this country, in particular the government's decision to disband the ports police, causes grave concern for opposition members as well as the Canadian public at large.

The problem remains. In the 10 months since the solicitor general has taken this post there have been many promises made, but we have yet to see the delivery of those promises. Canada continues to be open for business as far as organized crime is concerned.

The solicitor general did assure Canadians on Monday that he was on the job with respect to organized crime.

He also told us that he was going to bring biker gangs to their knees and eradicate organized crime. This is again a lot of tough talk, but we are waiting patiently and encouraging the solicitor general to act on these initiatives.

I would also put before the House the opinion of Scott Newark, the executive director of the Canadian Police Association. He offered this statement very recently to the solicitor general: “Anyone can talk tough. Let's see some action. Here is a guy who has some power, but I have not seen him exercise it yet”.

We have to be concerned when members of the policing community say those things. Mr. Newark went on to say “We are not interested in what the government says any more. We have had some very constructive and doable things that have run into a wall of indifference”. I am very concerned about the confidence in the policing community when those sorts of comments are being made publicly by a gentleman like Mr. Newark.

The solicitor general outlined specifically some of the positive measures of his department and the initiatives to improve national security that would result in changes to our Immigration Act, the Extradition Act and the Official Secrets Act, among other statutes. I would certainly hope that these measures do not have a long shelf life.

I commend the solicitor general for identifying the priority area of CSIS. When this organization began a decade ago many assumed that the end of the cold war would result in a decrease in the need for international security. Sadly, this has not been the case.

Certainly in Canada we have seen a rise in the area of organized crime. This perhaps poses one of the biggest threats to national security at this time.

Page 9 of the 1997 CSIS public report states: “There are many activities in addition to the traditional threat activities which cause or have the potential to cause threats to the public safety of Canadians and the national security of Canada”. Therefore, our focus may have to shift on the internal threats posed by organized crime.

In conclusion, I applaud the engagements of the solicitor general on behalf of CSIS to form intelligence activities, to enhance the protection of computer infrastructure, to review our counter-terrorism strategies and to apprise the government of foreign and domestic activities which may compromise public security. However, with that said, I am still concerned about the lack of resources to effectively implement these very laudable plans. Since the government took office in 1993 there have been more than 700 employees cut from CSIS, more than one-quarter of the total workforce.

I urge the solicitor general to engage his cabinet, in particular the finance minister, to see that this is not just talk and that these plans are going to be implemented. Like my colleagues, I look forward to working on the justice committee with the solicitor general.

Credit Ombudsman Act

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-396, an act to establish the office of Credit Ombudsman to be an advocate for the interests of consumers and small business in credit matters and to investigate and report on the provision by financial institutions of consumer and small business credit by community and by industry in order to ensure equity in the distribution of credit resources.

Mr. Speaker, this bill will set up the office of a credit ombudsman to investigate and report on the availability of financial institutions to consumers and small business people throughout the country. The office will act as their representative and advocate to make sure the financial institutions are serving the communities and citizens of this country in the way financial institutions should serve Canada.

I recommend this bill to the House.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Petitions

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise to present a very important petition signed by some 5,000 concerned residents of Sault Ste. Marie.

The petitioners strongly believe, as I do, that violent group crime by teenagers is a growing problem in Canada. I join these concerned citizens in calling on parliament to conduct a nationwide study of this very serious problem and to enact tougher penalties for participation in such criminal activity.

[Rahim Jaffer, Reform, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Edmonton Southwest, I have a petition to present to the House on the multilateral agreement on investment asking that public hearings be held across the country so that Canadians have the opportunity to express their opinions about the agreement before parliament ratifies it.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present another petition from petitioners in support of the development of a bioartificial kidney in Canada. It is signed by Ken Sharp and 300 people from the Peterborough area.

These citizens note that there are 18,000 Canadians suffering from end-stage kidney disease. Kidney dialysis and transplants have been a successful and important form of treatment, but they believe these services are inadequate. They call upon parliament to support the bioartificial kidney which will eventually eliminate the need for both dialysis and transplantation for those suffering from kidney disease.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we will be answering Question No. 13 today. .[Text]

[Greg Thompson, Progressive Conservative, Charlotte, NB]

Why did the government leave out key recommendations contained in the draft report of the Review of Section 14 of the Patent Act Amendment 1992 (Chapter 2, Statutes of Canada 1993) submitted to the Ministries of Health and Industry by the Standing Committee on Industry in April 1997 and why, in particular, was recommendation N concerning the repeal of the linkage regulations left out?

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

The government was not involved in finalizing the report of the Standing Committee on Industry, which completed its review of section 14 of the Patent Act Amendment Act, 1992 and presented its report to the House of Commons in April 1997.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest all other questions be allowed to stand.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the House I asked the parliamentary secretary again when he expects to provide an answer to Question No. 21 which was asked on October 2, 1997.

This is bordering on lunacy. It is bordering I suspect on a breach of parliamentary privilege when a person has to get up in the House and ask 10 times when the answer is going to come. Not only are we not getting the answer, we are not even being provided a timeframe as to when that answer might come.

Because of the high regard I hold for the parliamentary secretary, I do want to put him on notice that this issue is not going to go away. The case is not closed. I would like to have some idea when we might expect an answer to Question No. 21.

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as you know Routine Proceedings were in the afternoon yesterday. Following those proceedings I did follow up the member's request with respect to Question No. 21. I have not heard anything further about it this morning. I will continue to pursue the matter.

[The Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Request For Emergency Debate

[The Speaker]

Today I received a letter from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois requesting an emergency debate. I give him the floor.

[Gilles Duceppe, Bloc, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 52, I wish to request that the House hold an emergency debate regarding federal government compensation for all contaminated blood victims.

The federal and provincial governments signed an agreement on March 27, 1998 to compensate all those who contracted the hepatitis C virus through contaminated blood between January 1, 1986 and July 1, 1990. Under this agreement, those who contracted the hepatitis C virus through contaminated blood before or after the dates mentioned in the agreement are not eligible for compensation.

Despite repeated requests from all opposition parties, the federal government still refuses to compensate victims excluded from the agreement with the provinces.

As justification, the federal government invoked the agreement signed with the provinces. Government members suggested, however, that the government might re-examine its position if the provinces were prepared to propose extending the compensation program to all victims.

Yesterday, one of the parties to the agreement took a stand against the federal government's position. The Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion introduced by the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, and I quote:

That the National Assembly, subsequent to the motion passed unanimously on December 2, 1997, declare its support, on humanitarian grounds, for extending the existing compensation program to all contaminated blood victims not covered by the program.

That the costs of extending this program be funded by the federal government, since the Government of Quebec is already covering the costs of all care and services provided to these individuals.

That the Government of Quebec urge the federal government to follow up on this resolution and encourage the other provinces to make a similar request of the federal government.

In light of the Quebec National Assembly's unanimous vote, it is our view that the House of Commons should immediately and on an urgent basis consider its request. Members will understand that, for humanitarian reasons, we cannot allow those who contracted the hepatitis C virus from contaminated blood and who are ineligible for compensation to remain in uncertainty.

I therefore ask you, Mr. Speaker, to make it possible for the House to truly play its role, and for all parliamentarians to be able to express their views freely, unfettered by party politics.

I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to give favourable consideration to my request for an emergency debate on humanitarian grounds.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I should remind all members of this House that, under Standing Order 52.(4), to which the hon. member just referred—

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

Tell that to those who are dying.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if we have the right to rise on a point of order, we should also have the right to see that the Standing Orders are complied with. Standing Order 52.(4) reads as follows:

The Speaker shall decide, without any debate, whether or not the matter is proper to be discussed.

Further, Standing Order 52(3) states:

When requesting leave to propose such a motion, the Member shall rise in his or her place and present without argument the statement referred to in section (2) of this Standing Order.

In the future I would certainly hope that the rule being invoked by members be at least followed by the same members invoking it.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, in view of what happened at the National Assembly in Quebec last night, fundamental changes have taken place in the circumstances surrounding this issue. There certainly should be an emergency debate.