Maria Minna

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

We choose the government, that is right. We vote and we have a democratic process. That is what Canadian means. Every Canadian in this country has a different heritage, a different place that their parents came from, a different vision or a different region, but we are together as Canadians and that is what Canada is about. We are hybrids, some of us.

Some Canadians are first generation, some third, some fourth. Nonetheless, we are citizens of this country and we are Canadians. Multiculturalism is the only policy that this country has which is the equalizer, which brings this country together to create the model that this world needs.

In of all places, the New York Times , a writer stated that if Canada killed multiculturalism and the experiment died here it would be a sad state of affairs because if it died in Canada there would be no hope for the rest of the world to develop the same thing. I say to this House that it is time that people began to look at this government policy and include themselves in the future of this country instead of trying to maintain the status quo that never was.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

I am sorry, but it does not. It is not the people like myself who are neither of English nor French background who are causing the breakup of this country.

We believe in multiculturalism, in having a policy that acknowledges that this country is not what it was 200 years ago. Even then it was not what people claim it was. It was a multicultural nation from day one.

The model that we are building is one that we can be very proud of. The moneys used are for programs to develop and implement the ideology and concept of multiculturalism. One may disagree with a specific program but to disagree fundamentally with the policy is absolutely wrong.

I want to quote some of the statements that have been made in this House over the last week. One of the statements suggests we are funding specialist groups at the expense of the taxpayer. Are we not all taxpayers? Are the people who receive the funds not taxpayers? Why do some suggest that of us and them, those people are not taxpayers? This policy is not one of us and them, it is a policy of all of us. It affects every single Canadian.

There were statements such as this policy encourages large groups to remain apart from the mainstream. Who is the mainstream? In metropolitan Toronto the mainstream is all of us. There are some 100 different languages spoken. That is the mainstream of metropolitan Toronto, Hamilton and many other large urban centres in this country. I am not sure what is meant when people say the mainstream and what that is supposed to be.

Sometimes I am asked why I do not become a Canadian. What does Canadian mean? Canadian simply means that you are a citizen of this country who respects the laws and the citizens of this country and who will work and fight for this country.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

It is not. You are. Through you, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of Bill C-53 because I believe this nation is probably the world leader when it comes to identifying the importance of heritage and what that means to all of us.

To suggest that we do not need a department of heritage is to suggest that this country does not have a vision or focus or direction as a nation and nothing to build, that things will happen as they may, that regionalism will evolve as it may, that one part of the country need not talk to the other part of the country and that culture need not be reinforced in any which way.

However, today I would like to concentrate my comments around the whole issue of multiculturalism which hon. members of the Reform Party have made a great to do over in this House in the last several days.

What is multiculturalism? The first problem is that the members have totally misunderstood what that is. They keep referring to it as the Ukrainian community out west or the such and such community somewhere else which maintained their dance, their culture and their food. That is not only what multiculturalism is about. That is such a minor part it happens quite by itself as an hon. member rightly pointed out.

Multiculturalism is a fundamental policy that acknowledges the reality of what Canada is today. It is a multicultural society made up of peoples from all over the world.

Over the years it has been to the advantage of what used to be referred to as the mainstream to maintain the status quo of us and them. In the discussions even today I keep hearing the us and them, those people, the cultural people, the multicultural people. Those are the people who are neither English nor French. With respect, that is not what multiculturalism is all about. Multiculturalism defines this country. That means if one looks at a circle the perimeter of the circle is multiculturalism and that is Canada. Within the circle are Canadians of British descent, Canadians of French descent, Canadians of Italian descent and so on, and the aboriginal community. Within that circle is where we try to develop programs to deal with equity and to arrive at an equitable kind of society.

Without the fundamental policy, the concept of multiculturalism, I will tell members what happens. I have dealt for 20 years with program delivery of services in this country. Multiculturalism applies to every government department, not just to the department of multiculturalism. It is a policy, it is an idea. When policies are developed by different departments if the concept of multiculturalism is not taken into account at the very development of that policy the delivery of that policy will not reach everybody. It will be very inequitable.

The people developing both the policy and the mechanism with which to deliver it do not have either the experience or the understanding of the different peoples of this country. In order to be able to understand the needs of people in this country, in order to build a policy and a delivery mechanism that does not have barriers within it that would prevent people from accessing what is their right to access, that policy is not developed properly.

The policy assists in schools, the discussion of equality within the school system, so that children will learn about one another and are able to respect each other's backgrounds, are able to work together and be proud of who they are. The curriculum in this country for the longest time-these are very simple examples that should not even have to be made-ignored totally the contribution to Canada and around the world of peoples of different cultural backgrounds.

When we take into account the policy of multiculturalism we begin to say we must take into account all the contributions of all the people in this country. Christopher Columbus was not a North American; his name was Cristoforo Colombo. There are many others who came to this country over the last 200 years. People of Chinese background who built the railway in this country made a contribution to build this country. The Europeans who cleared the west made a contribution to this country. The Italian Canadians who built the railway as well and were incarcerated during the second world war, many of them built this country. This is not an us and them country. It is a we country.

Canada is a nation that is evolving. The culture of this country is evolving. It is not a British culture entirely. We are very respectful of the institutions.

The member across the way from the Reform Party a week ago suggested that people of immigrant background if we continue with multiculturalism will not respect Canadian institutions. I find that insulting. I am a Canadian and I respect Canadian institutions.

What is a Canadian? I was not born here. I came here at the age of nine. I am very proud of who I am and where I come from, but I am a very proud Canadian first and foremost. To suggest that people who have heritage that is not English or French are not proud Canadians is an insult to people in this country. Multiculturalism is the equalizer. It is the acknowledgement of what we are as a nation and that is what we are building.

Countries around the world have called us and asked us to share our experiences with them. Australia has taken our policy and taken it much further than we have. Germany has recently asked that we help it to develop a similar policy because the world around us is changing. We have countries where because of religious or ethnic differences people are killing each other.

We in this country are developing a model of coexistence, of mutual respect for one another and that is what multiculturalism is about. It fosters that respect. It helps us to build an evolving society. Nothing is static.

Every one of our heritages is just as important as the other. No one is more or less important.

It does not mean that Canada as a state and as a country is not something that we are all proud of and that is first and foremost in our minds. It does not mean that Canadians who are not of British or French background did not fight and die in the world wars.

Some people say that multiculturalism is divisive and is causing the divisions and the breakup of this country. That is highly insulting.

[Petitions, October 3rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition from 1,455 people across Canada with respect to the post office.

They cite that the Government of Canada has allowed that the Canadian postage stamp to be printed outside of Canada by another country. As petitioners they request that Parliament enact legislation against the Canadian postage stamp being printed outside of Canada.

[Child Poverty, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me tonight to speak on this issue, although a sad one at the same time.

Child poverty in Canada is a clear indication of the failure of social programs in a society. I believe very strongly that this is something that we must as a nation take in hand, and take in hand very quickly.

Poor children are not poor by themselves. They are poor because their parents are poor. Child poverty does not make for a healthy future in our society. Our human deficit will be the future deficit of this country. I believe that firmly.

We talk about the need for a better educated, skilled labour force all the time in the House. We talk about the deficiency of skills in the workforce. We talk about the need to train and educate. We discuss youth crime and retribution. We talk about how we must punish these young people and put them in jail and throw away the key sometimes. We talk about harsh punishment for young children.

We do not discuss openly and honestly why they are that way. The horrible blight on Canada is child poverty. It is a shame for this country to be in that position. We must work to eradicate this.

Children do not get involved in crime and problems all by themselves. Society has a hand in helping from the time that they are born whether it be because they are poor, or whether it be because they are abused in their homes or what have you.

In my view poverty is not just poverty from the point of view of not having enough food, shelter or clothing. It is also poverty of the society and the environment around them. Children are abused in homes all the time.

It is true, so there is no point in arguing about it, that we do not have social programs that meet the needs of children. We have seen mental health programs cut when children who need these programs are in line-ups across the country. That is unacceptable. How do we expect them to cope when we are not providing the support system they require? We do not have a proper child care program. We must provide one. Parents need that support. We need to have a comprehensive and supportive system for parents in this situation to cope.

We heard a member across the way talk about the fact that the only way to recognize poverty was to look at basic fundamental deficiencies. He indicated that we were looking a little too high at poverty and that low income was somehow too high a threshold. He referred proudly to a former member of the House, Barbara Greene, who was busy trying to raise the threshold of poverty so that it could be technically wiped out of the books. That does not get rid of poverty. The people would still be there. The children would still be there. They would not disappear. We can change the jargon. We can change the verbiage. We can change how we describe it. However they are still there; they do not disappear.

It is the state's business to worry about the children of the nation. We have a collective responsibility toward our children. They are the best resource of the nation to survive as a nation. We collectively make decisions about iron ore, forestry and all kinds of things, but when it comes to children the member across the way talks about the sanctity of the family and not doing anything. He says that we have no say or no role as a collective society. We do have a very strong role as a collective society.

Child care is very important. Proper support systems are very important. Low income is low income. Deficiencies, whether they be social, physical or whatever, are deficiencies. Supportive services in social programs are terribly important. We cannot blame the children. We must accept that raising children and preparing them to lead the country in the future is a collective responsibility that cannot be neglected. The member does not agree.

The UN has said that Canada is the best country in the world to live in. That is a wonderful thing we can be very proud of, but for certain individuals, namely children, it is not the best country in the world to live in. That is something we should be ashamed of and deal with tout de suite.

If we accomplish anything at all in the country it must be the eradication of child poverty in all its forms. We must develop a social support system that is comprehensive and supportive to children and their families.

I look forward to working with the upcoming social security review process and working hard with members of the House and Canadians to develop a system to address the basic needs of families and children at the very least. I hope all members of the House will participate in the process and in the end come up with something can be very proud of.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is not exactly the same. I believe the controls on CSIS currently are much stronger.

The allegations that have been made against CSIS and discussed in the House, if they were true, and I stress the word if, I believe there would be cause for us to be concerned and for the government to take a look at how the issue might be addressed or what things might need to be changed.

However, we do have a process in place. SIRC does have authority to investigate all of the activities of CSIS. The standing committee, as the hon. member said earlier, is also holding hearings. Some members opposite are members of this standing committee. They will also be having hearings and reviewing the reports that SIRC has. They will be meeting in front of SIRC yet again.

If at the end of that process, when the report from SIRC comes out and when the standing committee reports to the House on this issue, at that point if hon. members still have problems or this government finds that there are major problems we would be the first to deal with the issue.

I would like the hon. member to at least allow for the process to go through and for the standing committee of the House, which is representative of members of this House, to go through the process rather than engage in a major royal commission which, as I said earlier, costs a great deal of money as we all know. Royal commissions do not always wind up when they are supposed to wind up and they are quite a cumbersome process to set in place when we already have a process. There is no need to duplicate that process at this time.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I was talking about liaison and co-operation. Direction on domestic liaison provides guidance on the establishment of arrangements between the service and other federal or provincial institutions. A primary example is the ministerial direction on RCMP-CSIS co-operation.

The principles governing domestic liaison ensure that arrangements are consistent with the service's mandate and that they are in place when there is a requirement for access to information, operational support, information exchange or organizational consultation.

Similarly a direction on foreign liaison sets out principles to guide CSIS in the establishment and conduct of liaison with foreign security and intelligence organizations. The Solicitor General will issue new directions as necessary to ensure that Canada has a responsive and responsible security intelligence agency.

Other cornerstones of the accountability framework established by the CSIS act of 1984 were the review roles of the Security Intelligence Review Committee and the Inspector General of CSIS. SIRC has a mandate to review the propriety of CSIS activities, with emphasis on the delicate balance between national security and individual freedoms. Section 38 of the CSIS act directs SIRC to review generally its performance in the service of its duties and functions.

This includes reviewing such things as CSIS annual reports and certificates of the Inspector General, ministerial direction, CSIS arrangements with domestic and foreign governments and agencies, section 20 reports on unlawful conduct, and regulations.

Section 40 of the legislation makes SIRC responsible for reviewing the service's compliance with the CSIS act, its regulations and ministerial direction, as well as reviewing CSIS activities to ensure they do not involve an unreasonable or unnecessary exercise of powers.

An equally important review function is carried out by the Inspector General of CSIS. The post of Inspector General is unique; it has evolved over time in response to practical experience and ministerial expectations. The basic role of the Inspector General is to conduct independent internal reviews for the minister.

The CSIS act identifies three interlocking functions for the Inspector General: to review the operational activities of the service, to monitor the service's compliance with its operational policies and to submit certificates to the minister.

To ensure the Inspector General is able to exercise these functions effectively, the act stipulates that the Inspector General is entitled to have access to "any information under the control of the service" that relates to the performance of the functions of the office and to receive from the service "such information, reports and explanations" as the Inspector General deems necessary. Under section 31 no information other than cabinet confidences may be withheld on any grounds.

I have provided this detailed overview to illustrate the comprehensive type of legislative safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure that CSIS operates within its mandate and within the law at all times. Taken together these safeguards and oversight mechanisms provide a solid legislative foundation for CSIS that is in keeping with the best traditions and principles of a free and democratic nation.

The motion before the House would have us turn our backs on these traditions and principles and on the years of work and experience that went into creating a modern and effective legislative framework to govern Canada's national security system.

I am sure the hon. member's motion was prompted by concern for the wellbeing of our national security system. However I would suggest we wait for the SIRC review and the work of the standing committee, of which hon. members across the way are members, before we draw final conclusions.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Shall I stop, Mr. Speaker, or continue?

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the opposition motion. The motion is to denounce the government for not appointing a royal commission to inquire into the "illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service".

The hon. member is putting the cart before the horse. Why would the government wish to mount a royal commission when there has been no evidence of illegal activities? It is true there have been allegations of wrongdoing but they are just that, allegations.

Yet on the strength of unproven allegations the member wishes the government to mount a royal commission which would cost the taxpayers of the country hundreds of thousands of dollars. The hon. member may be prepared to take such liberties with the public purse, but the government has made it clear that it is committed to a program of fiscal responsibility.

Fiscal considerations aside, there is a more serious concern raised by the hon. member's motion. Implicit in the wording of the motion is the idea that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is an organization that is not subject to the authority of Parliament or to any type oversight mechanism. This motion, by suggesting such an idea, does a grave disservice to the reputation of CSIS and to the House which in 1984 put in place an extensive array of legislative safeguards and oversight mechanisms to ensure accountability, control and review of CSIS activities. Operating within this legislative framework, CSIS has proven itself to be a responsible security intelligence agency on a professional par with those of other western democracies.

Central to the control and direction of CSIS are the principles of ministerial control and accountability which are also central to Canadian parliamentary democracy. The CSIS act ensured that the minister would have full knowledge and power of direction over the policies, operations and management of CSIS. Subsection 6(1) of the CSIS act is unequivocal in its message that the minister provides direction to the director of the service.

The CSIS act also supplied the minister with the means to control and guide the service. Ministerial control is to be distinguished from ministerial accountability. Though they are sometimes used interchangeably, the terms have distinct meanings. Control refers to the minister's power of approval, the minister's ability to set policy and give direction and the means at the minister's disposal to ensure that decisions are implemented.

Accountability refers to the minister's obligation to answer before Parliament and the duty of officials to answer to the minister. A principal means by which the minister exercises control over CSIS is through the power of approval. By the normal rules of government, a minister must be consulted on all important matters related to the minister's portfolio.

In addition, the CSIS act and ministerial directions issued to the service require the minister to personally approve a wide variety of operational activities, particularly sensitive operations. The CSIS act stipulates that the minister must personally approve all applications for judicial warrants, all CSIS arrangements with other federal agencies and departments, provincial authorities and foreign governments, and the service's assistance in the coalition of foreign intelligence in Canada.

The minister also exercises control over the service through statutory power to establish the policy guidelines for the service. This is achieved through the issuance of ministerial directions.

An act of Parliament can construct a legislative framework but legislation alone cannot provide detailed guidance covering every aspect of operational activity.

For this there needs to be a policy framework to assist interpretation and implementation. Legislation governing the creation of a security intelligence agency has a special need for such a policy framework if there is to be public confidence in how the agency operates.

Policy frameworks in support of legislation are normally achieved in two ways; through the formulation of regulations and the development of operation guidelines. Neither mechanism however is entirely satisfactory in the security intelligence context.

Regulations as public instruments are obviously unsuited for conveying detailed instructions on how secret operations are to be conducted. Internal agency rules on the other hand would not provide a sufficient level of confidence.

A third device was therefore embodied in the legislation in the form of ministerial direction issued pursuant to subsection 6(2) of the act. Ministerial direction helps to ensure that the Solicitor General is the linchpin of the legal and policy framework.

In practice the minister issues all instructions of consequence in written form regardless of subject. Through the experience of working with the CSIS act the government now defines direction pursuant to subsection 6(2) as "written instructions of a continuing nature issued at the prerogative of the minister that relates to policy standards or procedures".

The strategic work for ministerial direction is clear. Over the last 10 years a set of ministerial directions has been developed setting out the Solicitor General's governing principles for the service and its activities. The directions may be grouped into seven major categories relating to; arrangements to assist the director's accountability to the minister; the government's annual priorities for intelligence on threats to Canada's security, known as the "national requirements"; guidance on the service's statutory duties and functions; guidance on investigative

methods and techniques; instructions dealing with the service's corporate management practices; standards for negotiating co-operative arrangements with domestic and foreign organizations and, policy and file mismanagement issues, particularly the service's retention of files inherited from the RCMP security service.

Currently some 50 ministerial directions are in effect. Directions are converted by the service into operational procedures for use directly by CSIS staff. This logical progression from statute to ministerial direction to operational procedure provides a manageable and auditable means of ensuring that the service is fulfilling its duties and functions in an appropriate manner. I remind all members that SIRC is copied on all these directives.

There is also great provision in the act for accountability. A general direction also exists to ensure the director's accountability to the minister. It describes the roles and responsibilities of the Solicitor General, the Deputy Solicitor General and the director and outlines formal reporting requirements such as the director's obligation to prepare an annual report. The minister has also established guidelines for the scope and content of the director's annual report.

Direction on service operational policy in respect of the service's security intelligence mandate is particularly important to ministerial control. It ensures that the service's collection, analysis and reporting activities respond to the government's annual national requirements for security intelligence and provides practical guidance in interpreting important terminology of the CSIS act.

The operational methods also are clearly laid out. A general direction on the conduct of investigations serves as an umbrella for other more specific directions providing guidance on operational methods. It implicitly endorses the five fundamental principles for controlling investigations espoused by the McDonald commission. The rule of law must be observed at all times.

The investigative means used must be proportionate to the gravity of the threat posed and the probability of its occurrence. The need to use various investigative techniques must be weighed against possible damage to civil liberties or the valuable social institutions.

The more intrusive the technique, the higher the authority required to approve its use. Except in emergency circumstances, the least intrusive techniques of information collection must be used before more intrusive techniques are applied.

A direction on joint operations recognizes that in certain circumstances Canadian security interests may demand the active presence in Canada of investigators from foreign security and intelligence organizations. The principles that are to guide the service's activities in this field are that Canadian sovereignty and law are to be fully respected and protected; the objective and potential product of the co-operation must be of benefit to Canada and serve Canadian national interests; and CSIS must exercise effective control of the co-operative activity.

A direction on foreign investigation provides guidelines governing the service's foreign investigative activity in relation to threats to the security of Canada. It stipulates that the approval of the Solicitor General is required before CSIS may undertake operational activity abroad.

The direction applies to human source travel, foreign security intelligence investigations by CSIS officials and service operational assistance abroad to foreign security and intelligence organizations.

A direction on domestic liaison provides guidance on the establishment of arrangements between-