Mr. Speaker, for months now the official opposition has been alerting the government about this national security problem. The opposition has questioned the government repeatedly in an attempt to find out who controlled whom, who ordered this or that job, exactly who asked for which investigation, but has never been given an answer.
And yet some questions were easy to answer. We were just asking for the names of people who are paid out of Canadian and Quebec taxpayers' money, but to no avail. I personally asked, in all sincerity, who was controlling the spies in this country, specifically with regard to CSE, but never got any answer. The official opposition received no satisfactory answer and neither did millions of Quebecers and Canadians. This is clear from the newspapers and editorials.
Our worries began with the disconcerting revelations about the illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. These were followed by the new revelations about the Communications Security Establishment, which only added to our fears and confirmed that nobody was keeping an eye on the spies in this country, which prides itself on being democratic and one of the best countries in the world.
After weeks of waiting, what is the government offering us to set our minds, and those of taxpayers, at rest? Nothing. Finally, a government backbencher was moved to present the following motion: "That, in the opinion of this House, the government should amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the operations of the Communications Security Establishment". This is a very telling motion, one which confirms our concerns and one which, in particular, proves that the official opposition was right.
First of all, the member is to be congratulated for having understood the official opposition's indignation on this issue. He is unfortunately one of the few to have understood our legitimate concerns, or rather he is one of the rare members of the present Liberal government who, upon crossing the floor, did not change his position on national security.
Need I remind you that when they were in opposition, the Liberals demanded exactly what we have been demanding for months, that is, more parliamentary control over spy organizations in Canada? We only have to read House and committee minutes to see that, in their lean years, the Liberals were calling for more openness. The times have changed now that their bellies are full. True, the carelessness and lack of action are typical of current-day Liberals, but it is still amazing in this field.
I must conclude that we will have to be satisfied with this motion when disclosures and allegations of illegal activities by the CSE are increasing and suspicion becomes the rule. What will this motion accomplish? Will this proposed amendment, if it is adopted, reassure taxpayers? Will the proposed amendment allow us to find out exactly what the Communications Security Establishment does and how it uses the $250 million-which is a very conservative estimate on my part-that this federal agency spends every year? This is a legitimate question we have a right to ask ourselves.
My constituents in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm are asking themselves this very question, and for good reason. To find out the answers, we must look at what the Security Intelligence Review Committee or SIRC has done in the past.
Since the past is an indication of the future, it is important to find out how these Sherlock Holmeses of national security, these truth seekers, these Colombos of Canadian espionage, these watchdogs of House secrecy, operate.
But, seriously, before putting an extra burden on these part-time defenders' frail shoulders, we must answer these questions. Putting the CSE under surveillance is a very good idea per se.
That is why I can tell you right away that I will support this motion. It is the organization to which we want to give this monitoring authority that is the problem. It is supposed to reassure the elected members and taxpayers, but its chairman says that in this service, they never say either yes or no; you will agree with me that that is not so reassuring.
As matters stand, we must answer no to the questions which I raised earlier. You will understand the reason for the Bloc Quebecois's amendment about follow-up, asking SIRC to report to this House, so that this House can monitor the organization which is supposed to monitor the CSE.
Although the motion is acceptable to the Official Opposition and the law creating SIRC, although flawed, is acceptable, I still say to you that if I were the Solicitor General of Canada and had this law in my hands, you would not recognize it once it had been through my office, it would be changed so much. As the saying goes, we make do with what we got, so we must somehow manage with the law we have. So why does the Bloc Quebecois always have concerns about SIRC? What worries us?
I think that my colleague in the Bloc Quebecois, the member for Bellechasse, summarized it very well in his opening speech, supporting the position of the Official Opposition on this subject. It is not the container but the contents of SIRC that must be changed first of all!
The well-known Conservatives on it no longer have any legitimacy. They no longer have any business there. In my opinion, they never had any business there because SIRC should be non-partisan. But since the system is the way it is, let us keep following the rules.
Again, as I did in the past, I ask, and I hope they are watching, Mr. Jacques Courtois, Mr. Edwin A. Goodman, Mr. George W. Vari, and even Mrs. Rosemary Brown, whose party no longer exists either, at least officially, to resign so that SIRC will reflect the democratic reality of the current Parliament.
With a minimum of four new members and an expanded mandate, SIRC could fulfill its primary role of watchdog. Its monitoring responsibility could then be increased.
I am anxious to see the government's position regarding this motion. I hope the Liberals will support it, especially since it is a motion tabled by a government member, a backbencher but a Liberal member. I hope that the Liberals will gladly support the motion. If it is carried in its present form, that motion will expand the responsibility of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Consequently, it is important to get things right from the start.
I will end by saying that, in SIRC's 1993-94 annual report, the author refers to William Pitt's line to the effect that where there is no law, tyranny takes hold. Mr. Speaker, I might add that this view is based on the premise that we can trust those who are supposed to apply the law and especially to monitor it. Thank you.