Val Meredith

[Justice, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, seven weeks ago the 14-year old daughter of two constituents of mine moved in with a 26-year old convicted sex offender. Neither the parents nor the police can do anything about this because the law states that the age of consent is 14 years.

Does the Minister of Justice see this as a case of child exploitation, or is the government content to see the situation continue?

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the debate on the budget and whether or not it should be delayed. I believe that although the budget is not really what I would have liked to have seen, the government had better get on with it and start instituting some cost cutting measures. If the government were to be prudent, it would come up with another budget in the fall to continue the process and start working toward a balanced budget.

I come from a province that is often criticized for living in a different world. It is the province of British Columbia. It is quite true, we do live in a part of the country that is quite different from the rest of Canada. The Rocky Mountains separate us from the rest of Canada. Because of our separation from the rest of Canada, our trade has been north-south. Our communication has been with our neighbours to the south.

My riding is on the Canadian-American border. We are not afraid of Americans. We are not afraid of trading with them or of being friends with them. We have established in our province a relationship with the states of Washington, Oregon and California that has developed its own economy. It is very distressful for me to see, because of the strength of the flow of goods and commerce north and south, that some Canadian businesses in my riding and in neighbouring ridings have chosen to move their businesses south of the border. They have not only chosen to move their businesses south of the border, but they have taken jobs south of the border. The reason they gave me is it is because of the cost of doing business in Canada. A lot of the cost of doing business in Canada is made up of high taxes and regulations that governments impose on the business community. It troubles me that these businesses are taking their money and their jobs and moving south.

It gives me some encouragement when I hear of groups such as Cascadia, which is an economic union between some of the northwestern United States and some of the western provinces of this country. I believe it is a union that includes Alaska, Washington, Oregon and northern California, with Alberta and British Columbia. It is an economic union that has some powerful economists and business people who are looking at the potential of a more secure economic union between western provinces and the western United States. That gives me some faith that there are other ways of addressing some of the problems that are created by the government.

I would hate to think that this economic union, which seems to be blossoming, might ever become a political union. It is important that I represent my constituency and my country in saying that this government has a mandate from the people of this country to try to reduce the cost of government so that businesses, not only in my constituency but in all constituencies across the country, will stay in Canada, will keep the jobs in Canada and will keep the money in Canada.

It is my concern that this government take seriously the task it has at hand, to make sure it is up front with Canadians as to what reducing government spending will cost. The government must be honest, it must be forthright, and it must look to the future of this country, not just to what is happening today.

It is very important for the government to get on with the business at hand, not to delay implementing the budget, but to get on with implementing it today. It is just as important for the government to look at coming back with another budget, a mini-budget if you will, that will carry it forward until the next budget year.

I would like to think this is only a first step, albeit a small step, in a process of the government balancing a budget. Canadians expect that. The Reform Party, in listening to what constituents are telling us, has come up with a vision which seems to be lacking from the government. It is a vision that looks at balancing the budget in the near future, not in 10 years when it is too late.

It is very important that we balance the budget as soon as possible. Only then can the government start eliminating an interest payment, or at least reducing an interest payment, and start eliminating the debt that has accumulated to over $550 billion. Our children and grandchildren can expect nothing less from all of us but to look at that very real problem, the problem that in three years time, if the government continues with its plan, we will be paying $50 billion in interest payments.

At least the Reform Party has acknowledged the problem, has identified the solution to the problem is short term pain for long term gain. In its taxpayers budget, the Reform Party has been up front, honest and has shown the Canadian public what is necessary for the country to get its financial house in order. The Reform Party has shown vision when it has talked about other ways for people to look after their own interests, to look after their own economic needs.

We have been visionary in looking at what is wrong with the system as it stands today and where we can go with it. When we talk to Canadians about the potential of an RPSP, a personal plan where they invest in their own future to look after their own needs, it is something Canadians can understand and they look for.

I do not know how many constituents I have talked to have contributed to the unemployment insurance plan and find that after 30 years of working it is not there for them when they need it. I do not know how many Canadians I have talked to in my constituency have contributed money to the civil servant pension plan or the RCMP pension plan or the defence pension plan, the armed forces pension plan. They think that money is sitting there in a pension plan, that it is protected. In reality that money is in the big black hole and is part of our national debt.

There is no security in there for any of these people who are looking at the Canadian pension plan or the individual pension plan. That concerns them. They look at this visionary RPSP where they are contributing to a plan that is there for them when they need it. They decide how much they will take out to assist them when there is unemployment or any other situation. They look at that as a new way, an interesting way, an interesting concept and something they can really get into.

I look forward to the days and months to come of expanding on that idea and sharing with Canadians how that can work for them. Canadians are looking to their government to have that kind of vision, for their government to be able to look for new ideas, not always falling back on the old way of doing things.

The old way of doing things which the Liberals brought in many years ago, 30-odd years ago, in deficit budgeting followed by the Mulroney Conservatives, has put us in this position. It is incumbent on the government to start taking the lead from the Reform Party with a newer vision and to start looking for some real answers instead of doing things the stale old way that only gets us deeper and deeper into debt.

[Budget Implementation Act, 1995, April 3rd, 1995]

It looks better in the books.

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are already concerned about high risk offenders walking the streets of their communities.

What assurances can the minister give Canadians that the government is taking steps to prevent innocent citizens from all high risk dangerous offenders, whether or not they are criminally insane?

[Criminal Code, March 31st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday an Ontario court justice ruled that the section in the Criminal Code dealing with criminally insane patients was unconstitutional. The judge has given the government six months to change the section.

What actions will the government be taking to meet the September deadline?

[Public Security, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have this opportunity to respond to the Solicitor General's statement on national security.

The minister is quite right when he states that we are facing a very different world than we did 11 years ago when CSIS was created. Although Canada was generally considered to be a peripheral player in the world of espionage, our proximity to the United States made this country a base of operations for hostile intelligence services operating against the Americans.

The traditional targets of the Warsaw pact nations have disappeared and some of our old adversaries are now our friends. At the same time, we see a different relationship with some of our old allies.

Recently the French and Americans quietly expelled some of each other's diplomats for activities that were inconsistent with their duties. I understand this is the diplomatic way of saying these people were kicked out of each other's country for spying.

Imagine if the French and Americans, two countries which have had cordial relationships going back to the American revolution, start spying on each other. Is anyone safe in today's environment? We used to be able to rely on our NATO allies to put up a common front against the communist bloc. How times have changed.

Today, the country that is viewed as the greatest threat to Canadian sovereignty is none other than our NATO ally, Spain. As Canadian and Spanish vessels play out a game of high seas brinkmanship off the Grand Banks, Canada is seeking diplomatic support among other countries, including Russia. I only hope during this confrontation that all Canada's intelligence agencies are providing our government with the best possible information and analysis that is available.

I agree with the minister that there is a need for Canada to have a security intelligence capability. The Reform Party supports the use of such agencies, as long as they are accountable to citizens of Canada.

Canada's intelligence services are faced with a rapidly changing political environment. How well they are able to adapt to it may become evident in the weeks ahead. Let us hope they pass the test.

Turning our attention to the world of counter-terrorism, the minister points to the recent nerve gas attack on the Tokyo subway lines as an example. It is interesting that he used this example to justify our continued vigilance against terrorist attacks. Last year it was the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York. Both these incidents were high profile attacks on innocent civilians and both appeared to have involved intricate conspiracies. Yet these two attacks had two very different groups behind them.

The attack on the World Trade Centre appears to have been the work of a fundamentalist Islamic group carrying on with its traditional battle against what it perceives as American imperialism. This incident can probably be viewed as a traditional terrorist attack.

The nerve gas attack in Tokyo is very different. Here the group that is suspected of being behind the terrorist action is a religious cult. It is not a group previously thought to be a terrorist organization, but rather an eccentric religious cult.

We have several religious cults in Canada. Are they capable of terrorist activities? Who knows? Does CSIS? Would CSIS be monitoring this doomsday cult if it was in Canada? When does an eccentric cult go from being a relatively harmless religious sect to being a threat to the security of the nation?

If an intelligence agency is to be useful, its interest in the group has to occur before the attack, not after. The question remains: Could CSIS have monitored a similar religious cult in Canada and prevented a nerve gas attack in Canada? It likely could have done it if the group was an extreme right wing group like the Heritage Front.

The best known example of Canada's domestic counter-terrorism has received a great deal of attention this past year. Canadians have had a rare glimpse inside a CSIS operation. However a glimpse is all that CSIS, SIRC and the Solicitor General seem prepared to give Canadians. The minister ad-

dressed the Heritage Front affair to some extent in his speech and unfortunately seems convinced that CSIS has acted in an exemplary manner. I will provide the House with a different interpretation.

I have no argument with CSIS monitoring the activities of the Heritage Front or similar groups. The manner in which CSIS used its human source, Grant Bristow, in relation to Heritage Front activities that targeted the Reform Party caused my colleagues and me a great deal of concern.

CSIS appears to have no problem with one of its sources playing an active role in the Heritage Front plan to discredit the Reform Party. SIRC appeared to have no problem with this. From what the minister has stated, he appears to have no problem with this either.

I wonder if the Solicitor General would be so understanding if the CSIS source had been operating within the Liberal Party instead.

As the Solicitor General is aware, the subcommittee has been meeting with SIRC over the past couple of months in camera reviewing its report on the Heritage Front affair. I am confident that when our committee goes public once again a very different picture of CSIS investigations will appear.

One thing the Solicitor General will have to address or perhaps readdress is the issue of CSIS sources involving themselves in legitimate political parties.

The ministerial directives issued in October 1989 by the then Solicitor General, the Hon. Pierre Blais, appeared to have been ignored. Then we have the issue of CSIS providing reports to the government of the day about rival political parties. Is it right that CSIS should be providing information to the party in power about another political party when it refuses to inform that second party? I do not think so.

We must not forget the alleged investigation or, as the government would prefer, the non-investigation of the leader of the Reform Party by CSIS. The SIRC report mentions that in late 1989 and early 1990, CSIS conducted an investigation into completely unsubstantiated accusations about campaign funding. The report says the subject of this investigation was Lnu Fnu, unknown contributors to the leader of the Reform Party's electoral campaign.

After a little prodding SIRC later reported that a mistake had been made, that during the three-month period the investigation actually was on the leader of the Reform Party, but that this was just a clerical error.

The Solicitor General has continued to try to portray this as a clerical error. The cold, hard reality is that on October 17, 1989 CSIS began a TARC level one investigation on the leader of the Reform Party and it ran for three months. Two months after the conclusion of this investigation which CSIS knew it could not possibly justify, it changed the name on the file to this mythical contributor and CSIS, SIRC and the Solicitor General want us to believe there is nothing wrong with this.

If a domestic security intelligence service is to exist in a democracy it must have the support of the people. The Solicitor General asks for the support of the opposition parties in acknowledging the need for a domestic security intelligence service. I ask the minister in return does he expect our party to give him any support when there are so many unanswered questions about the service's conduct in the Heritage Front affair?

The Reform Party is not prepared to give either the minister or CSIS a blank cheque. The Solicitor General will have to provide us with answers to a lot of questions. He should look carefully at the reports issued by the previous inspector general about the completeness of information that directors of CSIS have been providing to the minister.

While I can accept the notion that Canada's security intelligence apparatus must operate behind a veil of secrecy, this does not mean it can hide its mistakes behind this veil as well. All government agencies must be held accountable to the Canadian people. This is especially true for organizations like CSIS and CSE.

If the minister wants our support, it is available. Do not expect us to buy into something sight unseen.

[Justice, March 24th, 1995]

Quite a difference.

The charter of rights states that everyone has the right to life, liberty and the security of person. Sarah Kelly was deprived of this constitutional right.

Why does the government continue to give a higher priority to the charter rights of convicted sex offenders than it does to the rights of an innocent 13-year old girl?

[Justice, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, just a correction. I am from the province of British Columbia, not Alberta.

[Justice, March 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, Robert Arthurson, the convicted pedophile who murdered Sarah Kelly in The Pas, Manitoba last year previously admitted to a police officer and psychologist that he fantasized about killing a child.

However, the RCMP detachment in The Pas was prohibited from informing the community about the danger posed by Arthurson's presence. RCMP headquarters in Winnipeg stated it would be against Arthurson's charter rights to reveal this information.

I ask the Solicitor General if he is satisfied with the manner in which the RCMP handled this case and if he would instruct them to act in the same manner in the future?

[Correctional Service Canada, March 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, on June 10, 1994 while responding to a question of mine concerning a similar situation that occurred with Clifford Olson, the Minister of Justice stated that he hoped the allegations of crime are investigated, prosecuted and punished without reference to the lifestyle of the victim.

I ask the Solicitor General, what steps will you be taking to ensure that the attitudes of Correctional Service Canada are consistent with the government's policies and positions?