Herb Gray

[Correctional Service Canada, April 22nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the staff in my view has to be hired and ready to work with local and native groups.

There is no way in my view the institution could operate efficiently if the people who are going to be the staff come there after the doors are open. It is just common sense.

[Business Of The House, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, after I present the statement of business for the

coming week, I intend to ask the unanimous consent of the House to enable a special debate to take place this evening on the situation in Bosnia.

In that connection, I want to thank the Reform Party House leader for making a suggestion about having such a debate and suggesting a theme to be taken into account in the motion on which the debate will be based. It was a force of coincidence his request came at a time when we were giving thought to the same matter. I want to thank the Reform Party House leader for his constructive point in this regard.

This afternoon we will consider report stage and third reading of Bill C-6 regarding oil and gas. On Friday, Bill C-4 respecting the NAFTA side deals will be considered at the report and third reading stages. On Monday, the House will have before it second reading of Bill C-16 regarding certain land claims.

The business on Tuesday shall be Bill C-22 respecting Pearson airport which is at the second reading stage. After completing this bill we will call second reading of Bill C-21 regarding railway lands and Bill C-12 to update the Canada Business Corporations Act. This business will likely take us into Wednesday.

There are two bills the Minister of the Environment will be introducing on Monday that the House may wish to deal with next week as well. Finally, Thursday, April 28 shall be an opposition day.

As I said just before my statement, there have been consultations and I believe there will be consent for the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, at 6 p.m. this day, the House shall consider a motion by the Minister of Foreign Affairs as follows:

That this House, taking note of the tragic events which have taken place in and around Gorazde, and NATO's agreement in February to a UN request for the use of air support to protect a safe area around Sarajevo, consider the request contained in the UN Secretary-General's April 18 letter to the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization to extend arrangements similar to those in place to protect Sarajevo to the five other UN safe areas in Bosnia.

That, during debate on the said motion, the first four members to speak shall speak for not more than 15 minutes and any subsequent members shall speak for not more than 10 minutes; and

That, when no members rise to speak, but in any case not later than 10 p.m. the Speaker shall adjourn the House.

I would appreciate it, Mr. Speaker, if you would ask if there is consent for the motion I have read. If so, I would be prepared to put the motion and seek the unanimous consent of the House that this motion be adopted so that a debate on this matter of great interest and concern to members will begin at six o'clock this evening.

[Drugs, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we have been putting in place over a period of years a number of measures to deal with money laundering and we will continue to intensify our efforts.

I think that if you go by the report of the financial action task force of the G-7 countries, Canada's reputation is a solid one, but certainly we want to work to maintain that reputation and increase our efforts when it comes to money laundering.

[Drugs, April 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have asked officials to provide me with any information they have to confirm this American government report. They tell me that they have not yet found any empirical evidence to confirm it.

Furthermore Canada is a member of the financial action task force of the G-7 industrial countries. I am told that Canada does meet the minimum requirements of that task force that is designed to look into the matter of money laundering as it concerns the major G-7 industrial countries.

[Business Of The House, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the weekly business statement.

Today the House will continue with Bill C-17, the budget implementation bill. When we have completed it we will be debating Bill C-9, implementing some of the provisions of an earlier economic statement.

This will be followed by Motion No. 10, authorizing the procedure committee to provide the basis for legislation to reform the system of adjusting electoral boundaries. If this business is not completed today it will be followed in the same order tomorrow.

Monday shall be an opposition day. I believe it will be the turn of the Reform Party to present the subject for that opposition day.

Next Tuesday the House will resume the business not completed Friday.

This will be followed by consideration of Bill C-7 respecting the control of certain substances, Bill C-11 concerning tobacco, Bill C-4 dealing with the NAFTA side deals, Bill C-2 to reorganize Revenue Canada, Bill C-8 regarding the use of deadly force by police and prison officers, Bill C-13 respecting GST technical amendments, Bill C-15 revising the statutes respecting income tax, and Bill S-2 ratifying certain tax treaties.

[Sexual Harassment, April 14th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am deeply concerned about this case and the press reports indicating serious questions about the way the internal investigation was handled.

This morning I spoke about the matter to the commissioner of the RCMP. He assured me that sexual harassment is not tolerated in the force. He went on to say that he has ordered an immediate and thorough review of the matter in order to determine how the case was handled and if remedial action is required.

He assures me that the review is being given top priority and I hope to have further statements, as does the commissioner, before too long.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

[National Security, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, having just tabled the third public report of the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, I am now pleased to rise as Solicitor General to deliver the annual national security statement.

Taken together, this statement and the public report are intended to provide Canadians with an assessment of the current security intelligence environment and information about the government's efforts to ensure our national security.

It is my pleasure to continue this practice because I believe it is essential in a democratic society that Parliament and citizens have this information and that elected representatives are heard on the crucial issues of security intelligence, security enforcement and protective security.

Ten years ago with the passage of the CSIS Act and the Security Offences Act in 1984 a previous Liberal administration laid the foundation for a new national security system.

The goal was to create an effective national security system within which there would be a carefully controlled civilian security intelligence agency. This agency would work closely and effectively with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as well as with other government agencies such as Transport Canada, Foreign Affairs, National Defence and Citizenship and Immigration.

The Service's first years of operation were marked by intense scrutiny of how it went about its business. Concerns about the Service's operational focus led to the creation in 1987 of an independent advisory team to advise the government on how to realign the Service's operational priorities and strengthen its management.

On the advice of the team the government disbanded the counter-subversion branch of CSIS and the Service's use of intrusive investigative techniques was circumscribed to ensure that Canadians engaged in legitimate dissent were not caught up in the security intelligence net.

The CSIS Act's provision for an external Security Intelligence Review Committee, the SIRC, reporting directly to Parliament and the Office of the Inspector General reporting internally to the Minister, were key innovations in Canadian security intelligence.

SIRC with its annual reports to Parliament and the Office of the Inspector General with its annual certificates to the minister played an essential role in helping successive solicitors general exercise their control and accountability for CSIS. Five years after the legislation came into force, a special parliamentary committee examined the operation of the CSIS and security offences acts.

In 1991 in "On Course", the then government's response to the committee's report, the then government committed itself to making an annual statement to Parliament on national security and the tabling of a public report from the director of CSIS. Our system of review and control with its built in checks and balances involving the executive, the judicial and legislative components of government are working well.

In effect, the service has been under constant review and adjustment since inception and this should be reassuring to all Canadians. Indeed in its annual report for 1992-93 which I tabled in this House soon after becoming Solicitor General, SIRC concluded that CSIS "is working within the law and operating effectively".

Today we see a service faced with constant and at times dramatic change in the global security environment. Most notably, I speak of the collapse of the Soviet Union and of the classic cold war model of east versus west that was the overriding preoccupation of the national security system.

Members might well ask whether we are reorienting and streamlining our activities in step with today's security intelligence environment. Yes, we certainly are. Two years ago my predecessor asked the CSIS director to prepare for him an assessment of how the evolving security environment might affect the services mandate over time.

The director was also asked to consider how the service should be structured as a consequence and to determine the resource implications of his recommendations. In his report last year the director concluded that although the bipolar tensions of the cold war, which were terrifying but at the same time reassuring because they were known, had largely dissipated, a multiplicity of new threats and tensions has emerged.

The collapse of the Warsaw pact has been a major factor in allowing the government to judiciously prune the services resources. The services position complement has dropped from a peak of 2,760 in 1992 to 2,366 today, a reduction of 394 positions.

As the spending estimates for the fiscal year 1994-95 show, the CSIS budget is $206.8 million, down from $228.7 million last year. In terms of reorientation, the director's review confirmed the course of continuing to reduce the proportion of resources specifically dedicated to counter-intelligence while increasing resources directed to counter-terrorism.

Allow me also to note what the SIRC said on this issue in its annual report and again I quote: "We believe that CSIS is reorienting its activities in a sensible prudent fashion and the result will be a service that acts effectively against the modern terrorist threat to vulnerable highly interdependent post-industrial societies such as their own and which cost the nation less".

Our approach must continue to be prudent and steady. Mr. Speaker.

We have to be deliberate and measured in any change in the apportioning of our security intelligence resources and tough and adaptable in how we target them.

I say this because while the Cold War may well be over, the global situation does not warrant complacency.

Witness the conclusions of the Director in the public report: The member of foreign intelligence services operating against Canadian interests in Canada or abroad remains substantial.

The activities of former Cold War adversaries have generally been reduced, he notes, but they have by no means been eliminated. The recent arrest of a senior employee of the CIA for allegedly selling his country's secrets seems to bear this out.

The primary threat to Canada is international terrorism and the bulk of CSIS operational resources is dedicated to counter terrorism.

The conspiracy to bomb a Hindu temple in Toronto, the bombing of the World Trade Centre in New York, and the recent terrorist attack against Heathrow Airport in the United Kingdom bring home the point dramatically that open democratic societies offer vulnerable and attractive targets. Members should also know that terrorists are known to plan and raise funds for their operations elsewhere.

The conclusion of the CSIS threat assessment is both sobering and instructive. Terrorists will continue to avail themselves of the latest technology and to feed on the discontent of extremism both from the right and the left.

As the number of flash points grows around the world so do the potential number of threats. For this reason it is incumbent upon us to ensure CSIS has the ability to investigate and analyse threats and to advise the government so that it can take appropriate action.

To counter terrorism CSIS works with other government departments and agencies to deny entry into Canada of known and suspected terrorists. It also maintains liaison with foreign intelligence services and here at home with various communities and groups to identify emerging threats.

In this regard I would like to note that this government is concerned that recent arrivals to Canada not be victimized or manipulated by homeland governments or extremist groups. These recent arrivals have come to a new land to escape such conflict.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union has lifted the lid on a cauldron of ethnic nationalism. Disruption is rife and the waves caused are already lapping at our shores. The disruption of governments in some countries is making the work at CSIS and its allied counterparts around the world ever more difficult.

A mixture of ethnic, religious, ideological, economic and territorial pressures has increased instability in many regions around the world. The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons, continues to be worrisome. The increased availability of nuclear technology and the aspirations of some countries to acquire nuclear bomb-making capability are profoundly disturbing.

And as the nature of power changes, many countries are turning their intelligence services to the business of economic espionage, primarily in the developed Western world.

The Director underlines the Service's concern for the protection of Canada's economic security from disruption due to foreign intelligence services.

A key element of the CSIS mandate is to advise law enforcement agencies of terrorist threats thereby allowing police to take preventive action or arrest perpetrators.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is an essential part of our national security system, being responsible for protective security and for investigating security offences.

In addition to its responsibilities under the Security Offences Act it also provides security for VIPs, federal properties, including some airports and for foreign embassies and missions here on our soil. CSIS and the RCMP work closely together and it is my role as Solicitor General to work to ensure that the two agencies do not fail in their work to provide effective protection for Canadians and Canadian interests.

For example, CSIS provides security and threat assessments and the RCMP provides protective security for major events which have the potential to attract terrorists and extremists.

By way of conclusion, I want to say that this government in the speech from the throne committed itself to playing an active internationalist role in the global arena. As the speech said, in the light of the radical changes which have occurred in international affairs in the last few years, the government has asked parliamentary committees to review Canada's foreign and defence policies and priorities.

Mr. Speaker, we will want to follow these reviews closely and analyze the results for possible implications for our national security system.

Clearly, we should be prepared to make necessary adjustments in light of changing national security interests and realignment of foreign and defence priorities.

As I have just discussed, our orientation and national security is influenced considerably by the global security environment. Just as our national security system has undergone adjustment and reorientation over the last 10 years, so must we be ready to adapt and reorient in the coming years. I say this because Canadians are concerned about their sense of security in the world, a world that is ever more influencing our conduct at home in terms of the economy, jobs and protecting the environment and protecting our democratic institutions.

I believe that Canadians want an effective national security system. Therefore our government intends to pay close attention to national security issues but in a manner consistent with our democratic institutions and with our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have no doubt that hon. members expect no less.

[Canadian Security And Intelligence Service, April 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to table in this House the 1993 public report of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This is the third such report and I am tabling these documents in both official languages.

[Business Of The House, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this would depend on the pace of work of the Standing Committee on Procedure which will receive Bill C-18 after this House votes second reading later today. Under the rules, I do not think that report stage could begin until after we return from the Easter break. Certainly we would want to call report stage and then third reading of C-18 as soon as possible after the bill is reported back to the House from the standing committee.