Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to speak on the motion put forth by the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and the amendment of the hon. member for Bellechasse.
The motion per se is to amend the Canadian Security Intelligence Act to authorize the Security Intelligence Review Committee to review the activities of the Communications Security Establishment. As for the amendment, it is designed to force the review committee to table each year before this House a report on the activities of the CSE.
First of all, I would like to say that I agree entirely with the motion with amendment, as I think it is essential for the elected representatives to retain a minimum of control on agencies and institutions related to the world of espionage and intelligence that CSIS, the CSE and the SIRC are.
It also appears necessary, in the light of recent events, to remind the individuals who are part of such organizations that their duty is first and foremost to serve the public and that we have been elected to represent the public.
Concerns expressed by members from both sides of this House are born out by disconcerting revelations concerning alleged unlawful activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and the Communications Security Establishment.
How does a country that prides itself on being one of the most democratic in the world explain having agencies that account for their activities only when and to whom they please? One can also wonder what the current Liberal government is doing to give a feeling of security and restore confidence to all Canadians, but Quebecers in particular, who may have been targeted more often than they should by unlawful investigations.
Why did the government not react when it found out that serious allegations had been made and that the relevant standing committee of this House had been unable to obtain satisfactory answers? Why did a private member have to take the initiative? How will this be perceived by the public?
Although the member's initiative is eminently positive, we have a right to wonder what kind of image this passive government is sending to the population whose suspicions and concerns are quite justified.
There is no doubt that the Security Intelligence Review Committee is essential to ensure at least a minimum of accountability on the part of CSIS and eventually the CSE.
Only yesterday, we learned from a Canadian Press article published in La Presse that CSIS may have overstepped its mandate and inadvertently revealed secrets in trying to fight industrial espionage. The national agency may have collected with complete impunity information having nothing to do with any threat to national security.
It is certainly not the first time, and probably not the last, that such a thing has occurred. In this case, the review committee produced in 1993 a secret report that was obtained under the Access to Information Act. This should not be seen as a model of openness but it is an acceptable minimum. Unfortunately, this
acceptable minimum does not currently apply to the CSE which, as we have seen recently, enjoys an unusual level of freedom.
The Deputy Prime Minister said loud and clear in this House that the CSE's mandate was not to spy on Canadians. But no one was fooled, especially since the question that was put to her did not deal with the CSE's mandate but with its actual operations. In fact, the CSE has no mandate defined in legislation and is accountable only to the Privy Council. Clearly, it is not in the Privy Council's interest to make the CSE's blunders public, which makes it a very poor watchdog, we must admit.
The motion being debated today would considerably improve the situation, since it would make the CSE subject to monitoring by SIRC. Unfortunately, I must express some reservations about SIRC's effectiveness. I am thinking, for example, of SIRC's serious credibility problems, which are due to the fact that it is now made up of people who have not understood that they are answerable to Parliament and to the public, and who hide behind a narrow interpretation of some legal provisions to justify their silence.
The testimony given by members of SIRC before the House Committee on National Security on September 13 was a disgrace and Canadians and Quebecers were certainly not well served. At least four of these individuals, whose sense of ethics seems to be quite underdeveloped, were appointed by the previous government, which, need we remind you, was rejected by the voters in the most summary fashion. We are entitled to question the legitimacy of these well-known Conservatives who sit on SIRC.
That is why I join my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois to demand the immediate resignation of these individuals, and I urge the Liberal government to act on this.
A significant renewal of SIRC's staff would reflect the new make-up of this House and bring new blood to an organization which really needs it.
Hopefully, with a minimum of four new members, the Security Intelligence Review Committee could regain some of its lost credibility. These changes are essential, but they are still cosmetic.
Only this government, through the Solicitor General, can make the required changes to the legislation on the Security Intelligence Review Committee.
We can have motions to force the SIRC chairman to provide real answers to parliamentarians, instead of just saying "maybe" or "maybe not", but he will not do so as long as the government does not make significant changes to the act establishing the SIRC.
Although the Official Opposition can only agree with the underlying principle of this legislation, it questions the process for appointing SIRC members, as well as the ambiguous relations of that committee with Parliament.
In conclusion, the issue debated today was in fact the relation of confidence between Canadians and their institutions. When they were in opposition, the Liberals kept asking for greater transparency, as well as better control by Parliament over spy agencies.
The Communications Security Establishment spends over $250 million annually.
What does it do with that money? How does it spend it and for what purposes? We hope that the proposed motion will shed some light on CSE's operations. However, we are very aware that it is up to the federal government to ensure greater transparency regarding intelligence activity in Canada. Unfortunately, this government seems totally paralysed over this issue, as with several other strategic issues.
I want to congratulate the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, and the hon. member for Bellechasse for their initiative which, I hope, will be supported by the government and approved by the majority of members in this House.