Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on Bill C-52; I am especially pleased to speak on it because the riding which I represent in this House, Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, clearly lacks government services. I want to talk about this before getting into the main subject.
The only government buildings in my riding are marine navigation lights, a post office, an employment centre and an empty office building. That is not much. First we have the navigation lights. I think that the federal government cannot avoid this responsibility since the Rivière des Prairies flows through my riding and it must be marked with navigation lights. This is an absolute necessity. Then there is a post office in the heart of Ville d'Anjou, but having a post office in my riding is certainly not unusual since the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies is one of the most populous in the Montreal area. In that regard, not having a post office would be inexcusable.
As regards the need for a Canada employment centre in my riding, I think that for a better understanding of what is at stake here, I should point out to the House that the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, located in the eastern part of Montreal Island, is considered by many experts to be an economically depressed area: the unemployment rate is much higher than in the greater Montreal area; the number of welfare recipients is at record levels; it has the lowest average household income; and the school drop-out rate is one of the highest in Quebec. That being said, I do not think having a manpower centre in my riding is a luxury. It meets a real need among my constituents.
However, according to rumours in my riding, the centre may be moved to the Saint-Léonard riding, next door. It seems this would allow for better allocation of available resources. In fact, the real reasons are pretty obvious. First they expand the area covered by the manpower centre responsible for East Montreal. They consolidate various services in the same building, so that offices already being used are now too small or redundant. Finally, the new Department of Public Works and Government Services decides to move the offices to a new building, where it
can offer government services first and foremost to a riding that, incidentally, voted for the winning side. Quite a coincidence.
In fact, if the rumours I mentioned earlier are true, the new government offices will be located in one of the least disadvantaged areas of Montreal.
Of course for the time being, these are just rumours. Nevertheless, there is a precedent. I realized this when I looked at the history of politics in this riding. The first Canada Employment Centre to open its doors in this riding was inaugurated in 1984. At the time, it was an extension of the employment centre located in the present riding of Saint-Léonard. Of course, at the time, in 1984, the riding of Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies did not exist and Ville d'Anjou was part of the riding of Anjou-Saint-Léonard. After the election in 1984, this riding was represented in the House of Commons by the present member for Saint-Léonard.
In the fall of 1988, we had an election, and Ville d'Anjou was then part of a new riding, Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies. The riding was represented by the future minister responsible for the development of greater Montreal, and interestingly, the employment centre in my riding became a full-fledged centre from that very moment. Since it was then too small, the employment centre's offices were moved, this time to the riding of Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies.
In 1993, another election. Voters in Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies elected a member of the Bloc Quebecois to represent them, as did many Quebecers during this last election, and hence current rumours that the employment centre is going to be relocated.
To end these rumours, the Minister of Public Works and Government Services need only have answered my question to him about the activities of his whole department in my riding, as several Bloc members asked him about theirs. The letters we received suggested that it was impossible for financial and accounting reasons to explain what is going on in the ridings.
Given that, you will understand my disappointment with the vote on the amendment moved by a fellow Bloc member for a committee to monitor this department. You will agree with me that setting up a public monitoring commission with the mandate of scrutinizing the contracts let by the Department of Public Works and Government Services would be the best way to ensure the openness that the Liberal Party promised us so much in its famous red book that everyone quotes abundantly.
We find such openness nowhere in any of the departments we address. I shall take a few current examples since they are very recent.
We have been trying to find out how many family trusts there are, how many billions are involved and for how long this money will not be taxed. We are not getting any answers. No one can give us exact figures.
There is also the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. Some very serious allegations are being made that it has infiltrated a political party, specifically the Reform Party. This service's activities are subject to review by an independent committee, but when that committee's members appear before a House committee, the only reply they will make to our questions is that they have become accustomed to not giving a definite yes or no as an answer. This is not transparency.
Let us look at the events surrounding the Pearson airport affair. A bill to deprivatize Pearson was introduced, and of course the people who invested money in the airport will be making claims. The bill provides that these claims will be heard in camera by the minister responsible, rather than here in this House, or before the Canadian people. This is not what I would call transparency.
An ethics committee was struck to keep an eye on lobbyists. Rumour has it that this whole business is unsavoury. And to whom does the committee report? Instead of reporting to this House, it reports to the minister.
The Communications Security Establishment, which is allegedly involved in spying activities on a large scale throughout Canada and perhaps internationally, has been mentioned today, and indeed with increasing frequency for a few days now. Eighteen hundred people are involved in its operations, and although difficult to estimate, its budget seems to be in the range of two hundred and fifty or three hundred million dollars.
This brings us to another subject, the inquiry conducted by the Keable Commission which published some extremely important information. I may recall that the commission-I will read the first paragraph of the inquiry-started its proceedings on March 8, 1976. The commission reported as follows: Former RCMP officer Robert Samson was summoned to testify behind closed doors at his trial on charges of placing a bomb at the home of Samuel Dobrin. He revealed that in 1972, members of the three main police corps operating in Quebec searched the premises of the Agence de presse libre du Québec without a warrant. This unlawful search was part of a police operation under the code name "Bricole".
Subsequently, the Keable Commission was to question all the witnesses who appeared in this case, and the commission's initial terms of reference were gradually expanded as it discovered more and more facts.
At one point, the people conducting the inquiry tried to obtain specific figures and information from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and when the RCMP refused, they went to court. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and I would like to read to you what the members of the Keable Commission thought of this ruling. The following appears in Chapter 3, paragraph 3: "The Supreme Court's judgment recognizes the right of the Solicitor General of Canada to evoke, without further explanation, the interests of national security as grounds for refusing to produce documents relevant to a commission's inquiry. In so doing, the Supreme Court reinforces what Chief Justice Jules Deschênes of the Superior Court referred to, in a detailed study of section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act, as the absolute privilege which shields the executive from the judiciary. Of all the countries whose jurisprudence in this area was examined by Justice Deschênes, including England, Australia, New Zealand and the United States, Canada is the only country that repeatedly favours the doctrine of absolute privilege".
In other words, there are citizens in this country who are above the law, against whom no legal recourse is possible.
This is what transparency means, and unfortunately, Bill C-52 does not provide the controls we proposed. They are not in this bill, and we will therefore vote against this legislation.
