Herb Gray

[Royal Canadian Mounted Police, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, while the chair of the justice committee can speak for himself, I understand that he feels his comments were not completely and fully reported by the press. I would suggest that my hon. friend take that into account.

Also, there are 15,000 uniformed members of the RCMP. They have had their own labour relations system since 1975. They elect representatives to work on their behalf full time to protect their interests vis-à-vis management. I ask the hon. member to take that into account as well.

The study of Bill C-58 is beginning this afternoon in the appropriate committee. I think at that time it will be confirmed that the bill simply confirms the basic position with respect to the management of the RCMP. It does not add to the powers of the commissioner and it does not take anything away from

members of the force. That is why the House gave it second reading.

I commend it to the committee and to the House. It is designed to protect and enhance the position of the force as the prime policing organization in Canada and perhaps in the world.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I wish the hon. member had listened to my answer instead of reading out the question he had already prepared.

My answer made it clear that based on information provided to me by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the file in question was not about an investigation of the leader of the Reform Party but about the possible questionable financing by a foreign country of an election campaign.

The Security Intelligence Review Committee, under the statute creating CSIS, is in effect a permanent royal commission with a specific mandate to keep under review the activities of CSIS. The quality of its work has been demonstrated by the comprehensive report of the Heritage Front affair that brought to light the issue about which the hon. member is talking.

While the Security Intelligence Review Committee operates at arm's length from the government, I would think that if the subcommittee wanted to hear further from the Security Intelligence Review Committee on this subject it would be happy to come back to the subcommittee.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should give complete information to the House. What the executive director of the Security Intelligence Review Committee said was that in spite of the initial name of the file, it did not relate to the leader of the Reform Party but rather to the investigation of possible financing of an election campaign by a foreign country, which did not turn out to be correct.

I think the hon. member should give the whole story to the House. It would help us have a better question period.

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, February 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this matter was explained fully in a letter to the parliamentary subcommittee by the chair of the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

He said that the file in question did not relate to the leader of the Reform Party but rather to a low level investigation about possible financing by a foreign country of the election campaign in question.

When it was found that this was not the case, the investigation was terminated. The heading on the file did not accurately relate to what the file was about. It was not a file involving an investigation of the leader of the Reform Party.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 6th, 1995]

In so far as Correctional Service Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows:

(a) Money spent to date: Approximately $3.11 million has been spent to date.

(b) Allocation of funds: $1.61 million for acquisition of site, including legal fees; $1.5 million for two environmental studies, architectural design drawings, salary and operating cost for the Kitchener federally sentenced women office to house the warden, the deputy warden and support staff.

(c) In November 1993 the Maple Grove site was given consideration as a possible site for the prison. However, the location was found to be unsuitable for the following reasons:

(1) There are only two possible locations at the Maple Grove site which are sufficiently level to permit construction of the new women's prison. Neither is large enough to build on.

(2) Making the site larger to accommodate the needs of a women's prison would entail removing an esker. This would require provincial environmental approval and such a process would be both costly and time consuming. Meeting the anticipated environmental concerns would significantly increase the cost of the prison. Also, an agreement would have to be negotiated with the province of Ontario concerning the role of Correctional Service Canada in sharing the costs arising from this process.

(3) There would be significant additional costs of bringing storm and sanitary sewers to the Maple Grove site.

(4) The minimum travel time required for services such as ambulance, police and fire to reach the location in the event of an emergency is exceeded because it is not close enough to these services.

(5) The Maple Grove site is not within a maximum 15-minute walk to available public transit services.

(6) Alternative sites would only have been considered if the Solicitor General had decided to reopen the site selection process. This is not the case.

On June 6, 1994, the Solicitor General issued a news release announcing the decision to proceed with the site already purchased on Homer Watson Boulevard and describing the reasons not to reopen the site selection process. This decision was based on an extensive review of all aspects of the Kitchener project and confirmed that the site on Homer Watson Boulevard was the best of the 21 sites originally proposed by the city of Kitchener. The review did not include consideration of sites not on the original list.

(d) The Oxford Regional Centre does not have design features that are consistent with the principles established by the task force on federally sentenced women, such as a home-like atmosphere with small cottage units to promote independent living in small groups, building structures that have natural light and good air ventilation, a size that would allow an interactive atmosphere, and non-intrusive security measures, in order to reflect the low risk to the community presented by most inmates. For these reasons further consideration was not given to the Oxford Regional Centre.

(e) The cost of relocating the facility to another site is estimated at $5.2 million, which consists of an estimated $2.8 million to acquire a new serviced property, conduct environmental studies and modify the architectural drawings to the new site. The remaining $2.4 million represents the cost of operating the prison for women in Kingston, Ontario, for an additional year. As for federally sentenced women, the construction of the other facilities is planned to be completed in late fall 1995.

Question No. 88-

[Business Of The House, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few offerings for my hon. colleagues, just before the holidays.

First of all, in my capacity as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I want to join in the congratulations and best wishes to Mr. Fréchette, Mr. Robitaille and Mr. Renaud.

This afternoon we will continue consideration of third reading stage of Bill C-53. I believe there is an understanding that we will vote on this today. However, there will be an interruption at around 4.30 or 5 p.m. when the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod will summon the House to the other place for a royal assent ceremony. I understand that will be the last formal activity in Parliament by His Excellency the current Governor General before he leaves office early in the new year.

Also, I understand there is some considerable desire on both sides of the House to adjourn for the winter adjournment provided for in Standing Order 28 after completing Bill C-53 and the royal assent.

I will announce the business for the day when we return during the week before that date, hopefully not in this House but directly to my hon. colleagues. I want to say that tentatively I am looking at Bill C-44 and Bill C-62 as the selections likely to be called.

Finally, I would like to extend to the other House leaders and all members of this House my non-partisan best wishes for the holidays and the new year.

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I repeat that this report is a report of an independent commission of inquiry. My role is to bring the report to the attention of the public through this House in the fullest possible manner, which I have done.

With respect to the second part of the member's question, the law adopted by this Parliament makes clear that CSIS is not to investigate lawful acts of protest, dissent or promotion of a cause. I think that is pretty well clear. I hope it will give the reassurance the hon. member is seeking.

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee which is the report of the committee and not of the government said in part that the service had an obligation to investigate whether the government of the foreign country was involved in attempting to influence the outcome of a Canadian election. It also went on to say that CSIS did not investigate the Reform Party or its membership.

If my hon. friend does not agree with this, I suggest she question SIRC directly when it appears before the subcommittee. I understand her concerns, but the vehicle to which she should address her questions is the SIRC itself.

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise and innuendo of the hon. member's question.

The SIRC was created by an act of this Parliament to operate at arm's length from the government, from Parliament itself and from CSIS. I really question why he thinks a subcommittee of this House made up of people linked directly to political parties is less partisan than the arm's length Security Intelligence Review Committee. There is a contradiction in what he says.

[Security Intelligence Review Committee, December 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee are appointed by order in council in exactly the same way as a short term commission of inquiry. They have the fullest powers to investigate, to seek documents, to question people under oath and they are in a position to complete a full and comprehensive report into matters they look into. That is what they have done. That report is before us for questioning and also is before us to use as a resource to make sure that CSIS is operating in a way required by law.

I suggest to the hon. leader of the Reform Party that he take another look at the report. Its basic purpose was to investigate allegations about the conduct of CSIS not about the conduct of political figures. It has done this job. I suggest that he and his colleagues follow up their concerns by addressing their questions directly to the members of SIRC when they appear before the parliamentary subcommittee or for that matter, seeking out meetings with them directly.