Mr. Speaker, let me first of all commend the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for his concern for making the debate on the CSE more transparent than the answers given during Question Period by the minister responsible, the Minister of National Defence.
Indeed, the member who also chairs the sub-committee on national security, has moved: "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 (CSE)".
As you can see, this augurs much better than the minister's various statements on the subject. This motion is based on a principle which the Bloc Quebecois has stated many times: the ability to account to our taxpayers for the activities of federal institutions, including the Communications Security Establishment.
If this motion is adopted and implemented by the Liberal government, the Communications Security Establishment will be accountable to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, better known as SIRC. It is estimated that the CSE spends between $200 and $300 million a year without being held accountable for it. It is also estimated that the CSE employs between 800 and 1,000 employees, but other sources put the number as high as 1,850.
However, it is impossible to obtain confirmation of these figures at this time. Furthermore, recent allegations from a former spy who worked in the CSE for several years indicate that agents used electronic eavesdropping to intercept the telephone calls of Quebec politicians. When questioned on this subject, however, the Minister of National Defence hides behind the sacrosanct national interest and refuses to answer.
The motion of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River does not set a world precedent, far from it. The Australian Security Intelligence Organization, MI-6, the Government Communications Headquarters in Great Britain, and the CIA in the United States are already monitored in their respective countries by an outside committee, which operates in a way similar to what is proposed in Motion M-38.
Belgium and some countries which belonged to the former Warsaw Pact are now considering the possibility of doing exactly what the member for Scarborough-Rouge River is proposing for Canada. Unfortunately, our Minister of National Defence tells us that it is not in the national interest to reveal the operational methods or the administrative standards which
apply to the CSE's activities, and I refer to an article in Le Devoir of October 25, 1994.
Where is the respect for democracy when the minister, always in the so-called national interest, refuses to tell us how many people work for the Communications Security Establishment? After all, the Agence France Presse reported, on November 8, 1994, that the British defence minister was downsizing the secret service, and that about 100 of the 6,000 positions related to these operations at the Government Communications Headquarters would be eliminated.
The British can evaluate how their secret service is managed, as well as appreciate the fact that it is affected by the budgetary cuts announced by their government. They also know how many employees work for that service, and they are informed of the cuts affecting this organization responsible for analysis of so-called sensitive information, or intelligence.
This is where democratic transparency starts. By now, you will have guessed that I am in favour of having an external body monitor CSE's operations, as proposed in the motion now before us.
However, I have some reservations regarding the Security Intelligence Review Committee. First, I wish to point out to the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River that the current membership of that committee, SIRC, must be reviewed. Indeed, the members of the committee were essentially appointed on the recommendations of the main political parties in the previous Parliament. These appointments were made on the basis of recommendations by the Liberals, the Conservatives and the New Democrats.
I agree with my Bloc Quebecois colleagues who feel that some SIRC members no longer have a legitimate right to sit on the committee, since their presence does not reflect the will of Canadians, as expressed during the last federal election. Indeed, these members essentially represent political parties which were democratically rejected by voters.
The membership of this committee should take into account the wishes of Canadians, and it should reflect the political reality of this Parliament. It is time members of SIRC did the honourable thing and promptly resigned so that Parliament could then appoint new members to represent them on this committee.
I should add that in the near future we will have to take steps to take politics out of the process of appointing members to this committee. Furthermore, the legislation governing SIRC should concentrate on reviewing certain mechanisms that raise a number of questions. For instance, does the process of reporting to Parliament really give members a chance to establish that the rights and freedoms of Canadians and Quebecers have been respected? Should this mechanism be more transparent? Should SIRC be allowed to submit its annual report uncensored to the Speaker of the House?
Under section 54 of the CSIS Act, SIRC is also required to submit to the Solicitor General, on a regular basis, special reports concerning specific events. Should we provide that the nature and subject of these regular reports be routinely communicated to the House?
Section 30 of the CSIS Act defines the functions of an inspector general, which include monitoring compliance with operational policies and reviewing the operational activities of CSIS. Before including the CSE in this legislation, we should consider the relevance and effectiveness of having both an inspector general and the SIRC for monitoring purposes. Is this duplication that could be avoided?
Should the mandate of the director of the CSE be seven years, like his counterpart at CSIS? Or should tenure be during pleasure? Should SIRC have access to cabinet documents which are not legally accessible at the present time? And finally, should a member of the Auditor General's office audit CSE's accounts and report his findings to this House?
Many questions remain to be answered. I think that in the public interest, the government should answer them as soon as possible to prevent further erosion of the public's trust in federal institutions.
In concluding, I seriously hope that the government will react favourably to the motion presented by its member for Scarborough-Rouge River and that it will give careful consideration to my questions and recommendations.