Patrick Gagnon

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

As I was saying, I rise today to speak on this motion which, as the solicitor general mentioned, involves a certain number of problems and misunderstandings. It seems essential to me that the members of this House understand and fully appreciate the complex and sensitively ordered system of checks and balances that is part of our national system of security intelligence.

Also, that system is designed to ensure a balance between the protection of individual freedoms and the need to protect the Canadian public against threats to the security of their country. Most people will agree that we must protect Canada against threats to its security and that this protection requires a security intelligence agency.

There is no doubt in my mind that Canada needs a security intelligence service, as all other industrialized countries do. Let us take for example the threat that terrorism involves. Canadian democracy is based on a climate of freedom and political objectives are met through open discussions, debates or other legitimate activities toward lawful advocacy.

However, that climate, as well as public safety, is jeopardized when an individual or a group is trying to meet those political goals through violence or threat of violence.

In the 1980s, terrorism became a major concern for safety and the government gave CSIS the mandate to gather, on a priority basis, security information on terrorism. Our first line of defence must be information.

The other thing which is threatening us is espionage. Since the emergence of nation-states, espionage has become part of everyday life. Every nation is striving to improve its position within the international community. However, we have to admit that even if the political scene is better world-wide, some nations still resort to deceptive or clandestine activities for the purpose of enhancing their international position.

Canada must protect itself against such threats, whether they take the form of traditional espionage or of any other means of illegally obtaining the technological know-how of this country.

Canada must also be able to identify and to thwart steps taken by foreign countries or agents seeking to secretly influence or harass our ethnic communities. Again, we must protect those who have elected to settle in Canada and make it their new homeland.

Here also, the gathering of good intelligence is at the very heart of our first line of defence. I am convinced that the CSIS Act is an efficient piece of legislation, enforced according to the wishes of Parliament set forth ten years ago. The CSIS Act provides a legislative framework likely to ensure the delicate balance between efficient national security and the respect of

individual rights and freedoms. The Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act defines the mandate of CSIS and gives it the necessary powers to fulfill it.

It provides a unique operational framework for CSIS. It defines the powers of the service and specifies its limits. These take the form of various control mechanisms: political controls, subject to ministerial accountability and responsibility; judicial controls and external controls by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, or SIRC.

The act also provides a mechanism allowing any person or group of persons to complain about any aspect of CSIS activities. Furthermore, the Security Offences Act, which was passed at the same time as the CSIS Act, confirms the RCMP's responsibility concerning security offences, as well as its responsibility in preventing such offences.

These two acts provide a legislative framework flexible enough to adapt efficiently to the circumstances of each case. Furthermore it should be emphasized that the political and judicial structure of these two acts is unique in the world. The government used policy directives to guide their interpretation and implementation.

The main stakeholders in the Canadian security intelligence system made sure that the legislation was practical and efficient. The service has developed and follows a strict and satisfactory investigation procedure. Since 1984, the Inspector General and the Security Intelligence Review Committee have played their role in an orderly and strict manner.

The Solicitor General relies a great deal on their work, especially on the reports of the Inspector General that enable him to make sure that the service is conforming to legislation and following departmental directives on orientations. The review committee's annual report that the Solicitor General tables in Parliament completes the annual cycle of public accountability.

Finally, the RCMP and CSIS have established measures and developed mechanisms for co-operation. This is how the legislation works today. Solid legislation, detailed government instructions and an efficient internal administration are the elements which allow the service to fulfil the mandate it received from Parliament ten years ago.

The government does not stop there. I wish to remind everyone that this government is constantly trying to find means to improve the quality of the service. As the minister responsible for CSIS the Solicitor General must make sure that in its daily operations the service maintains a fair balance between national security requirements and the rights and freedoms of Canadians. The minister does that by using his authority to approve and to give directions and also by relying on the reports of the Inspector General and the review committee.

Therefore, his task is to exercise a ministerial control. He answers for the CSIS to cabinet and to Parliament. Two main processes allow the minister to fulfil that responsibility. The first one is his approval or concurring authority.

In keeping with the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, the Solicitor General must personally approve all investigation warrant requests, all agreements concluded between CSIS and other organizations, departments, provinces and foreign countries, and all requests for data collection in Canada by CSIS on behalf of foreign countries.

Now, let us examine the other act, passed in 1994, the Security Offences Act. This act confirms the RCMP's overriding responsibility in investigating certain security offences. Intelligence gathering, protection and enforcement are the three pillars of our security system.

The RCMP and CSIS have complementary functions. Each service assumes a distinct role within the wider framework of our national security system. CSIS is responsible for gathering intelligence concerning threats to security and giving warning about such threats. The RCMP is responsible for investigating into offences, either planned or committed and, above all, for crime prevention.

In order to facilitate CSIS's task, the CSIS Act contains detailed definitions of possible threats to the security of Canada.

This enables CSIS to rapidly adapt to circumstances in our constantly evolving world and to ensuing threats, as was Parliament's wish ten years ago. For example, the CSIS Act has allowed this organization to adapt to political and economic upheavals in the world during the last ten years.

Although areas of concern are not the same, we can still feel very strongly that hostile intelligence services threaten our national security. In matters of terrorism, new threats to the security of Canada have evolved as a consequence of foreign conflicts being unfortunately introduced into Canada. Terrorism is a scourge that spares no nation on Earth. Unfortunately it does not seem to be receding, quite the contrary.

Ever since its creation in 1984, CSIS has been able to evolve considerably thanks to the flexibility provided by the act and to ministerial directives. The act continues to give us the necessary means to face any subversive action. Naturally, because of its very nature, a security intelligence service must remain secret. This is particularly necessary in some cases, when the right of someone to privacy is to be protected.

Secrecy is also required to protect certain operational activities like staff distribution, modes of operation and sources of information. Everybody recognizes that secrecy as an end in itself does not serve anyone.

I have touched on the kind of security intelligence system that Parliament wanted to meet the needs of democracy, and I have touched on some of the real threats that make such a system a necessity in a democracy.

I am only echoing the words of the Solicitor General when I say that we do not need to set up a royal commission of inquiry, because we already have in place systems like the SIRC, that have the wide powers necessary to conduct an in-depth inquiry.

Therefore, before deciding on anything, let us wait until the Security Intelligence Review Committee has completed its job and submitted its report to the Solicitor General. This should be done shortly. Once the report has been submitted, as parliamentarians we will be able to take the necessary steps.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I did not use them pejoratively.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

You know, Madam Speaker, the Opposition member is still a good devil. I rise today to speak on this motion.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order. I object to that personal remark. I asked a question and I want to get an answer. Let us leave character out of this.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, does the hon. member realize that the review committee can enter any office or public institution and visit all the premises, examine every document, voucher, or file in that office or institution? I get the impression the hon. member did not quite understand when the Solicitor General said the review committee has the same powers as a royal commission of inquiry.

I do not see any purpose in having a royal commission. Since members opposite always complain about duplication, why should we have a royal commission? We already have a review committee, the SIRC. We all know that SIRC was created precisely to investigate allegations such as those made recently.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I did indeed listen carefully to the comments made by my hon. colleague from the Opposition. First, the hon. member referred to events that occurred in 1970, which I think is a rather sensitive period, but we are not here to go through that again, since this was already covered by the McDonald Commission, which led to the creation of SIRC and CSIS.

Moreover, I find rather strange that when abuses are discussed, those which happened in the 1950s are never mentioned. The hon. member did not mention the Padlock Act passed by the Union Nationale. They went after the Asbestos workers in 1949. They went after my constituents in Murdochville. I find it passing strange that nothing is said about abuses done either at the federal level or especially at the provincial level.

I am not here to criticize the province or the country, but I would like nevertheless to indicate to the hon. member that SIRC was created to ensure the presence of a civilian body operating at arms length both from CSIS and the government itself. We are looking forward to the report SIRC should present in the next few weeks, and I am sure it will be to everyone's satisfaction, or at least I hope so. We will see what we will be able to discuss here with the Opposition members.

[Referendum On Quebec Sovereignty, September 27th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, last week I rose in the House to ask the new Premier of Quebec to keep his promise about holding a referendum on Quebec's political independence not later than eight or ten months from now.

Following his swearing in yesterday, Mr. Parizeau said, in referring to the 1995 timeframe, that it was too early to be either more specific or more undecided. This is an obvious sign of ambivalence.

The Leader of the Bloc Quebecois used the symphony as a metaphor for the position of the two sovereignist parties on a referendum date in 1995.

Unfortunately, today Quebecers are not getting much in the way of harmony from the two sovereignist maestros on a definite referendum date. Ignoring the wishes of the public and the solemn commitment by Mr. Parizeau regarding a referendum, some of our separatist stars, showing a total disregard for promises and democratic values, want to postpone the referendum date and thus penalize Quebec by not letting it exercise its right to choose.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to deal with that issue. I find it unfortunate that we often have weird-minded historians. In order to understand today's society-and I challenge the Bloc Quebecois on this-we must fully understand its history, we must be very clear on our intentions to explain history, because it is through history that we can explain to the people the situation as we know it today. Nobody can disagree with me on some historical issues that I have raised, and I want to say this to you: Ask Europeans, Asians, Americans, and they will all tell you that Canada is a resounding success.

French Canadians were able to overcome their difficulties when they first arrived in New France and established their own community. These French Canadians became part of the larger Canadian family, thanks to newcomers, Eastern Europeans, English-speaking people, even people from the United States, from Europe, Asian people who are coming to this country, because they are well aware that Canada is a country of freedom, of progress, a good place to live.

That is why I demand that we take into account the historical value of industry, but also the history of Canada, which somewhat explains this bill and the objective of this government.

Of course, industry is important. We are entering the 21st century and I believe that we must prepare ourselves accordingly. But instead of telling you about history, I will tell you about global reality. I know that it is an issue which deeply concerns members of the opposition parties.

The Prime Minister of Canada is setting up Team Canada. We had a hockey team called Team Canada and we were very successful. Now, we are going to have an industrial and economic Team Canada whose mandate will be to create new markets for all Canadians. Besides, as you know, we even asked the newly elected Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, to be part of the team, because what we are trying to do is make sure we get the contracts and ensure sustainable economic development for all Canadians. This is what we must kept in mind.

Again, why China, why go to China, why are Canadians so welcome in China? I want to know. I bet that some of you never heard of Dr. Bethune, a Montrealer, a Quebecer who did a lot for China during the 1949 revolution. It is because we have built ties with that country as with others.

By creating this department, we are saying that there are changes, that we are increasingly recognizing that 80 percent of the jobs today are created by small businesses. We know that we have invested in megaprojects in the past, at both the federal and provincial levels. This was a joint endeavour. Quebec invested in James Bay. In Montreal, there were substantial municipal investments in the Metro. There were also large investments in regional economic development, but I will come back to that.

We must recognize that industrial development requires close co-operation between governments and companies in order to make Canadians more competitive on the eve of the 21st century. As you know, Canadians, Quebecers, the Western World in general, are faced with extremely strong, well organized competition. Look at the seven small tigers. Who had heard of Singapore ten years ago? Who would have thought twenty years ago that South Korea would rise to the point it is now? Who talked about Taiwan? Who would have imagined China as a competitor? Who could have predicted the fall of the Berlin wall?

We have lived through tremendous changes these past few years. Free enterprise won over the tyrannic powers of the world without a fight. Changes are occurring and I believe that this reorganization of Industry Canada will take them into account. Although the opposition was saying that we were still in the 1960s, I believe they are sticking to a nationalistic view which, in my opinion, does not represent the real aspirations of Quebecers and Canadians who want jobs.

With the new Department of Industry and the help of new technologies, we will be able to steer small businesses towards new markets. Our advantage is that Canada is a well-known entity. When you go to your banker to ask for a loan, he wants to know your past history, he wants to know if you have a good credit rating. Do you have any business experience? Do you have any experience in your present field of endeavour? Do you have resources-In any case, I am grateful to the members of the opposition for talking a little bit about the natural resources of this country. It is important for investors, it is important to realize that Canada possesses not only natural resources but also a qualified population to meet challenges.

The basic role of Industry Canada is to bring together those various participants of the federal government and to improve planning.

As you know-I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I only have one minute left although I could have spoken for half an hour-history is important in order to better explain to the opposition and enlighten it on the real issues that all Canadians expect to come to the fore: job creation, close co-operation, and not the upheaval or modification of a well-known system.

There will be a referendum in Quebec and I can assure you federalism will not be put on trial. It will be our task to explain to you, loud and clear, the essence of federalism as we all know it today.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

As a Quebecer, as a younger member, Mr. Speaker-

[Department Of Industry Act, September 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I join many of my colleagues on this side of the House in supporting the establishment of a Department of Industry and I hope that this support will be unanimous. This new department will give Canada and Canadians the new tools they need to help them create jobs and build a more secure future.

However, before we go any further, I think that we have to take into consideration the history of our country. We can always think of the first settlers who were supported by the church or by people who were put there to help them develop an area-in my case it was the Gaspé Peninsula-and that is how Quebec and Canada were built.

There is always some degree of co-operation between the various elements of our society in any area, whether it be industry, education or, of course, the public service. But since then, since the 17th and 18th centuries, there was Confederation in 1867 and the National Policy was established under Sir John A. Macdonald. It was a very ambitious plan. It all started with the construction of the railway better known today as CN and VIA Rail. This great project to link our country from east to west did not go unnoticed in other parts of the world.

It was undertaken to give some impetus to the Canadian economy, but it could not have been done without the support of governments, without money being spent on the construction of this trans-Canada railway. Indeed, if we look at the debates held in 1867 in this House, we will see that there have always been critics of this avant-garde vision of the federal government at that time. But by developing the railway, that government believed that it was giving itself the means to develop this country. The resources were developed afterwards; then, thanks to the railway, Western Canada was populated, as well as Ontario and part of Quebec. Links were made between these new provinces, and this marked the beginning of the Canadian federation.

This is a primary example of a massive intervention by the federal government, but in consultation and co-operation with business interests and also with provincial governments.

Then came the first world war. Once again we found some unanimity, a will to fight for our rights, for our country, but still in a spirit of generalized co-operation. The same thing happened at the time of the Second World War when, over a period of five or six years, our industry, with government support, went from a third-rate position to making Canada the third or fourth greatest economic power of the time.

As you know, before 1945, before the war, over 45 per cent of the Canadian population was rural. After the war years, Canada became an industrial power. We went through an urbanization phase with people leaving rural areas to settle in the city. After the war and initiatives like the Victory Loan Bonds to raise money, the government took the same approach. After six years of substantial interest rates, Canadians were able to invest in their country's own economy because they had faith in it. They bought into Canada.

In 1945, 1946, and 1947, we were in a position to implement a demilitarization policy to foster an economy based on consumer spending. We became a consumer society, but that did not happen without the help, involvement and commitment of the federal government.

My colleague opposite mentioned C. D. Howe, who master-minded Canadian industrial development in those years, and Walter Gordon. They were men of vision who laid the foundation of the Canadian society as we know it. Those developments should be seen in their historical context so we can better

explain the goal of the present government in revitalizing the Canadian industry as we enter the next century.

The 1950s came. You know that those years are often called the dark ages in Quebec. The province was ruled by the Union nationale, under Duplessis. Quebec was undergoing changes, but changes similar to those outside Canada.

We then had the Quiet Revolution which, obviously, met many Quebecers' aspirations. We should never forget that the Quiet Revolution took place under a Liberal government, within the Canadian context and the Canadian federation. We were able to show Quebecers that federalism is a flexible and generous system which fulfils the deep-rooted aspirations of all Canadians.

During the 1960s, new schools were built. University education was popularized and made accessible to all Quebecers. Of course, we must not forget that education-as is the case today-was financed in large part by the federal government. Never did the federal government dare intervene in this quiet revolution, never did the federal government dare hinder the material progress, the economic progress of all Quebecers. This fact must be recognized.

In the late 1960s, more specifically in 1966, the people elected another Union Nationale government which claimed that the premier of the day, Jean Lesage, went too fast for Quebec. We must not forget either that Jean Lesage served as a minister in the federal government in the 1950s. Surely, he must have borrowed some ideas and solutions from his colleagues from Ontario and the Maritimes. I believe we must recognize-and I think that many researchers and specialists interested in Jean Lesage do recognize-that Jean Lesage's tenure in Ottawa served him well in developing Quebec as we know it today.

That being said, more progress was made in the 1970s. In those days, we believed more and more in the welfare state. It is not a concept exclusive to Quebec or Canada, but a concept also known in Germany, Scandinavia, France and even England. The purpose of the welfare state is to make sure that everybody's interests, not only the interests of financiers, or people from Montreal and Quebec City, are taken into account.