Myron Thompson

[Dangerous Offenders, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I for one would be more than pleased to support something that would save the lives of future victims.

Are fellows by the names of Thom, Sparklingeyes, Jerabek, Toner or Foulston familiar to the minister? Will the minister be responsible for any offences these violent offenders who are now being sought by the RCMP-

[Dangerous Offenders, October 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have been in this House for a year. In that entire year the Solicitor General has rambled on with his rhetoric about his task force, his studies, his reviews, all those wonderful things he is going to do to make this country safe and those hon. members laugh. They should laugh in the faces of the victims and see if they think it is funny. It is time to take some action.

While the minister rambles, hundreds and hundreds of victims have felt the sting of these guys who have been released when they ought to have been left in jail. Would the minister be willing to show the intestinal fortitude and political will to announce a moratorium that no more dangerous violent offenders will be released until this is settled?

[Petitions, September 30th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36 I am pleased to present a petition from constituents in and around the area of Bowden, Alberta in my riding.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the human rights code or change 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 prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech I used the word if quite often, as did the hon. member across the way. We have a couple of speeches with a lot of ifs. I think his if was a little bigger than my if. He was talking about it being a shame if Mr. Bristow happened to be on the right track of something and this whole thing interfered with it.

I know what I believe. I do not think there is any doubt about it. One thing that has been lost in the country is the trust of the people who sent us here. That trust has been lost in the public. All we have to do is open our ears and listen to the fears of people about corruption, suspected corruption or supposed corruption, for the last 30 years.

So far no one has accused me of it, but I have seen surveys asking people what is the most popular occupation or who are the most valuable persons in the country. When we see doctors and teachers on the list and find politicians underneath lawyers I think we in the House have something to think about.

I like the assurances of the parliamentary secretary, but I am afraid assurances like those ones have become nothing more than political rhetoric for Canadians. They have heard it before. They probably heard it before that hon. member was born. It has been going on and on.

What does the member suggest as a basis of the ongoing studies on what actions SIRC should take when it has obviously identified some serious problems? What actions does he think the committee will take if it verifies even some of the allegations?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly would not suggest for a moment that we run hairy-scary into some kind of thing that is going to cost millions of dollars. I do not think I indicated that at all.

I did indicate that there is a special group of people put together called SIRC and I think it has a big responsibility to report everything that happens and when I suspect for a moment and when we have reasons to suspect that is not happening, my question in return would be is this Liberal government going to make absolutely certain that these people who are on the payroll

are going to be accountable to the Canadians in earning the bucks that they make. Are they going to do their job or not? Do we have to go to extremes such as a royal commission?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his assurances with regard to the feelings of the Liberals about this particular activity.

I am shocked that anybody from that side of the House would suggest that spending money is wrong. Good grief, it has not shown it in any other direction or area. Spending money has become a very positive, happy thing for this group to do.

I certainly do not believe for a moment that there would be any reason to think this kind of investigation would call for that kind of money. I am pleased to see that this committee has been set up and I hope this government can assure us that once that committee has finished its investigation the Canadian people, not the Reform Party, who have a right to know are thoroughly satisfied that this thing is resolved and if not would it please assure us that we will get to the bottom of it and that it must never occur again in this kind of activity.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the reason CSIS was formed was due to irregularities in surveillance by the previous security organization under the control of the RCMP.

It is well documented that the RCMP broke the laws of Canada investigating a legitimate political movement in Quebec. It is also well documented when this illegal behaviour was revealed the government of the day not only authorized deep investigation but also formed CSIS so its actions would be responsible, law-abiding and within the scope of the law.

Now we have independent concern that CSIS may have encouraged a private citizen to gather information on another legitimate political movement.

What is the difference between the activity of the former security service and the alleged illegal activity of CSIS? I do not see any difference.

On page 48 of the Security Intelligence Review Committee's annual report it states, under the heading surveillance that SIRC is concerned about the large amount of information gathered by CSIS in the course of surveillance operations. On the same page, under sensitive operations, SIRC also is concerned that CSIS undertook a sensitive operation when no definite indications existed that there was actual or potential reason for the intelligence activity.

On page 47 of the same report SIRC expresses concern about the targeting of surveillance. It stated on one occasion the reason for surveillance, and in this case stretched its meaning too far.

SIRC is telling Canadians that CSIS had no real reason to target or conduct surveillance on its target, but it began and continued to monitor and observe its target even though SIRC confirmed it had no legal authority to engage in that behaviour.

SIRC also stated that CSIS used inappropriate or imprecise reasons based upon section II of the CSIS act to target for surveillance. SIRC stated that CSIS had difficulty understanding what was considered an actual threat to the security of Canada. Yet there is no reference that SIRC ordered CSIS to better understand and follow the legislation that governs its operations.

There is another instance in the annual report where SIRC indicated that CSIS targeted another investigation improperly. SIRC announced when reviewing the reasons for the investigation that its investigators said CSIS did not have any justification to pursue its surveillance. Again SIRC reported CSIS was running amok, but there is no record of SIRC doing anything about it.

The act governing CSIS states quite clearly that CSIS must not have used and cannot use its powers unreasonably or unnecessarily and must perform its duties and functions effectively, efficiently and, most of all, legally.

If CSIS paid a private citizen to infiltrate, assist in forming and spreading a message of supremacy, that clearly illustrates that CSIS violated the abuse of powers section of the guiding principles in the CSIS act.

If CSIS allowed this same private citizen to encourage white supremists to join and infiltrate a legitimate political party, that is certainly violating the concern about abuse of power.

The Reform Party of Canada is not a group of terrorists. It is not a group of agents of hostile intelligence services and it is certainly not a threat to the security of Canada. The Reform Party, whether this government likes it or not, is the party of choice for the law-abiding citizens of Canada.

How can this Liberal government expect law-abiding citizens to continue their respect for the law when a government agency is accused of blatantly and with disregard for the legitimate purpose break the law with impunity?

At the very least the government watchdog for illegal activity by CSIS, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, must announce to Parliament in no uncertain terms if CSIS allowed its informant to be a mole in the Reform Party, if CSIS allowed its informant to encourage white supremists to join the Reform Party? If this occurred SIRC must make that knowledge known to the entire public.

If CSIS knew the private citizen was actively involved with white supremists, becoming active in the Reform Party would publicly damage the reputation of this legitimate political movement.

SIRC and CSIS are responsible to Parliament for their actions and Parliament is responsible to the people of Canada. At the very least, this Liberal government must tell the people of Canada whether CSIS allowed a loose cannon to sully a legitimate political party.

If CSIS was actively involved in initiating a supremist group, forming a supremist group and funding a supremist group through the actions of their informant, full disclosure of this despicable act will not be a threat to Canada's security or to Canadians.

If CSIS was involved the only threat full disclosure will have is to the authorities in charge of CSIS.

Considering if the illegal activity was sanctioned by those in charge, this Liberal government must give a full, detailed and in-depth disclosure to all parliamentarians and the people of Canada the reason CSIS considered a legitimate political party, my party, the Reform Party of Canada, a target for surveillance.

Since this Liberal government refuses to initiate a royal commission into the possible illegal activities of CSIS we must consider why this Liberal government is trying to hide behind secrecy and the CSIS act. All Canadians must consider why the governing party in the House of Commons refuses to initiate a thorough investigation of possible illegal activity by a department of government, displaying a total disregard for the laws of this land.

A previous government not only investigated illegal activity by Canada's previous secret service, it disbanded the organization and formed a new service.

No one is suggesting this Liberal government waste tax dollars disbanding and organizing a new service. All Canadians are strongly telling this Liberal government a full investigation, detailed disclosure and removal of those from CSIS, if any, who had knowledge of and supported any illegal activities must take priority over any minor embarrassment that this government could suffer.

To refuse a full inquiry and detailed disclosure to Parliament tells Canadians this government condones unnecessary secrecy and is now abusing the trust given to it by the people of Canada.

This Liberal government may full well claim it does not or did not have anything to do with the possible illegal activity of CSIS because it was not in power when this activity occurred. Refusing to have an investigation into what may have been done will not satisfy the law-abiding people of Canada.

This Liberal government has everything to lose by not holding a full inquiry. It will lose the trust of Canadians and as a governing party that loss of trust can never be regained. That loss of trust may continue diminishing government in the eyes of Canadians, and that can never be allowed.

[Justice, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with great anticipation I attended the CAVEAT convention in Hamilton, Ontario. I believed, in listening to various groups and individuals attending, I could get some new ideas and new procedures that would help address the problems in our justice system.

I heard many good suggestions, but I also heard that getting support for these good suggestions would be difficult because there are no funds to improve justice, victims' rights, restitution and safety for the citizens.

I mention this because no sooner did I hear the government had no funds for justice than I was told the government had $12 million to build a commercial building in Edmonton that would house doctors, lawyers, private associations, a bank and a restaurant, all private enterprises that could fund their own working environment.

It seems the government can spend $12 million to support associations, professions and private enterprise but has no funds to give to justice and give justice to Canadians.

We now know what is important to the government, and one thing is for sure: it is not justice.

[Petitions, September 28th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am proud to present a petition containing 2,600 signatures on behalf of the constituents of Wild Rose.

These petitioners pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection that is enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

I respectfully submit this petition on this day.

[Agriculture, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the grain growers in Wild Rose my question is for the agricultural minister and his department. These farmers would like to know if the minister believes that in Canada they should have the freedom to sell their own produce as they see fit. Y-e-s or n-o.