Val Meredith

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I did not realize there was any limit on a question of privilege.

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, in a letter sent to CSIS on November 9, 1995 the subcommittee asked questions about the caption on October 17, 1989 targeting authority, originally entitled "Preston Manning".

Among the many questions asked were: "How was a caption change made on the form 4002? Was the original form altered or was the original form destroyed and a new backdated and reinitialled form created?" The subcommittee also asked questions about the November 10, 1989 transit slip, form 3040, from the chief of counter-intelligence, general desk, to the general director of counter-intelligence.

Specifically, questions were asked about item five of the form which stated: "Caption is considered appropriate under policy provisions". Among questions asked were: "Can you provide the subcommittee with an explanation of this assertion in light of the fact that at the time the caption read `Preston Manning' and was not changed until March 30, 1990? If the caption was"-

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I do I am trying to outline the reasons and the evidence that support that breach.

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I am trying to but the evidence is on record in minutes of meetings. I would like to bring it to the attention of the House. The Solicitor General of Canada has been mislead and tabled a report that is misleading to the House. If I may continue, Madam Speaker?

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege. I feel it is incumbent upon me as a member of Parliament to bring to your attention a matter of the most serious importance.

The following description of events is lengthy and complex but will clearly show that actions taken by the Security Intelligence Review Committee are an affront to the House and amount to the utmost disrespect for Parliament.

Page 123 of the twentieth edition of Erskine May defines contempt as follows:

It may be stated generally that any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of that offence.

Furthermore, in Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada contempt respecting documents is defined as follows:

Similarly, should any person present documents to to a committee of the House of Commons which have been forged, falsified, or fabricated with intent to deceive such committee or the House, or, to be privy to such forging or fraud, this will constitute contempt of Parliament because it is an obvious affront to the House of Commons to present it with such documents. The House of Commons is not only entitled to but demands the utmost respect when material is placed before it for its scrutiny, investigation or study.

The following description will show that SIRC's actions led directly to the Solicitor General of Canada's unknowingly tabling on December 15, 1994 a report contemptuous of the House.

On December 15, 1994 the SIRC report on the Heritage Front affair was tabled in the House of Commons by the Solicitor General of Canada.

In chapter 8 of the report the following is written: "On October 17, 1989 the service decided to formally investigate the alleged $45,000 contribution. CSIS said that they could not go back to the informant, as all contacts had ended on December 31, 1988. The service authorized a three month, level one investigation entitled "LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign)". The service cited section 12, paragraph 2(b) of the CSIS Act as the legal basis for the investigation".

On December 16, 1994 SIRC appeared before the national security subcommittee. I asked the following of SIRC. I quote page 5:32 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Subcommittee on National Security: ``Can you have your officials go back to CSIS and have them examine the hard copy of the original authorization of the level one investigation on the Reform Party and a foreign government, not just the corrected copy? Specifically, can your employees examine the caption on the file?''

SIRC member Michel Robert responded: "About this specific question, the last one, I do not know. I will examine that. I am not in a position to answer now but will certainly look at the files".

In other words, Mr. Robert mentioned nothing about knowing of any name change in the investigation entitled "LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign)" when the SIRC report on the Heritage Front affair was tabled in the House of Commons on December 15, 1994 by the Solicitor General of Canada.

However, in a letter dated January 27, 1995 from Maurice Archdeacon, executive director of SIRC, Mr. Archdeacon informed the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, the chair of the committee on national security, that the file caption was indeed changed: "The caption she referred to for the targeting authority dated October 17, 1989 was Preston Manning. The caption was revised on March 30, 1990 to state: `LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign)"'.

On March 30, 1995 the Solicitor General of Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs accompanied by his deputy ministers, including Ward Elcock, the director of CSIS.

Mr. Elcock was asked why SIRC was unaware that the file was originally in Mr. Manning's name. Mr. Elcock's response, according to the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Issue 95, March 30, 1995,

pages 95:17 and 95:18 was: "I don't know that in fact that SIRC was unaware. I don't know why they would not have put it in their report or would have chosen not to do that. That is SIRC's business and you would have to address that question to SIRC".

After further questioning about whether SIRC knew about the investigation name change, Mr. Elcock went on to say: "My belief is that they did have that information, but I will certainly check that for the hon. member".

The following day, on March 31, 1995, I wrote to the hon. Jacques Courtois, chair of SIRC, asking for clarification of Mr. Elcock's comments of the previous day: "Was any member or employee of SIRC aware that the original TARC investigation launched on October 17, 1989 [was] in the name of Preston Manning and not "LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign)" when the Heritage Front report was tabled December 9, 1994?"

Mr. Archdeacon responded for Mr. Courtois in a letter dated April 7, 1995. He said in his reply to my letter that contrary to what the SIRC report and committee testimony from SIRC members had led the House to believe, SIRC did indeed know of the investigation's name change at the time of the tabling of the report by the solicitor general: "SIRC staff saw the original title of the targeting authorization as well as the corrected titled and all other documents pertaining to this investigation".

The evidence presented bears witness to the fact that the actions taken by SIRC are in contempt of the House. SIRC deliberately omitted from its December, 1994 report the fact that the name of one of CSIS's investigations was originally entitled "Preston Manning".

For whatever reason, the caption of the TARC investigation was changed to "LNU/FNU (Unknown Contributor(s) to Preston Manning's Electoral Campaign)" two months after the expiration of the investigation.

These facts are by any measure crucial and their absence from the report is inexplicable and deliberately contemptuous. The actions taken by SIRC amount to an attempt to mislead a minister of the crown and to obstruct the House by offering admittedly incomplete information.

This should have been the conclusion of my question of privilege, as the evidence is clear. However, over the past two months SIRC and CSIS have provided new information that is completely contrary with their own evidence to this point.

In a letter sent to CSIS on November 9-

[Privilege, June 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that would be in order after the report is tabled.

[Dangerous Offenders, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues who have spoken in support of this motion and I wish to clarify some comments made by members of the Bloc and the government.

The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam pointed out that opposition to the motion implies that the job of declaring dangerous offenders would be transferred from the judicial system to psychiatrists. That is definitely not the case.

When an individual has committed serious, indictable, sexual assault against an adult or any sexual assault against a child, the individual must be tested by two psychiatrists. The reason I introduced the motion is that, like many other Canadians, I am concerned that our system does not take seriously individuals who have shown an inclination or a pattern for this kind of serious sexual assault against an adult or children and does not incarcerate or force them into treatment to make sure these situations do not arise again.

The motion is putting into place that those individuals after being convicted of those crimes must be seen by psychiatrists who would determine whether the individual is likely to reoffend.

After that determination has been made by the psychiatrists, who are really the only people who have the tools to make that kind of assessment, it forces the courts to look at a dangerous offender application. They do not have to declare them dangerous offenders, but simply that the courts have to determine whether the individual is a dangerous offender.

We are not at all taking it out of the judicial system. We are not suggesting psychiatrists replace the judicial process. We are suggesting that because of past experience of people slipping through the system it is important to eliminate those areas where an individual may not be identified. We are talking about preventive measures, changing our laws in such a way that the emphasis is put on early identification of pedophiles and psychopaths, people who are likely to reoffend, and to deal with with them in a direct, upright and serious way.

If my colleagues in the House are really concerned about the protection of women and children, as the red book promised, and if they are really concerned about the safety of Canadians on the streets and in their homes and about the commitment to protect society from predators who do not hesitate to use children as their victims or intimidate and threaten women, I urge them all to support Motion No. 116 and show Canadians the House is prepared to do something to ensure the safety of all Canadians.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it is not I who shows little faith in jurors and in fellow Canadians. It is the people who support this legislation who will put aside a decision that jurors made in the

initial charge of this conviction. It is a trial by jury and by judge that tries and convicts people on first degree murder.

A person cannot be convicted of first degree murder unless there is a jury there. I respect the jury and I respect the judge at the original time.

Why would we need another judge and jury to decide the fate 15 years later? That fate was decided with all the evidence presented at the time. I respect their decision. I and my colleagues ask why does nobody else respect the decision of that initial court?

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I will acknowledge that it was previous governments that dealt with this issue. It was a previous Liberal government under which section 745 was introduced into the Criminal Code.

I will acknowledge there were what were considered to be free votes in the House of Commons. That is as far as I would go. Free votes in the House of Commons by government members are not really free votes.

When dealing with the capital punishment issue, I suggest it was made very clear to government members before that vote was taken by the Conservative government what the expectation was.

It is not Parliament that should be making this decision, it is the Canadian people who should be making the decision. It is the Canadian people who should have the opportunity through a referendum to decide whether punishment is something they want as the most severe penalty in their justice system. The justice system is the system there for the Canadian people, not just the members of Parliament.

[Criminal Code, June 14th, 1996]

That is a surprise. You have not been here that long.