Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today in this debate.
In tabling the 1997 public report of CSIS and delivering his annual statement on global and domestic security, the minister reflects the government's desire to remain transparent and accountable regarding the management of security intelligence issues.
Because all procedures used by CSIS cannot be disclosed, we should hope that security intelligence is gathered in a legitimate fashion. Of course, the minister stands up for his department, but troubling facts are regularly reported by the press.
In fact, how can the minister reconcile the statement he just made with the following facts?
On April 4, based on the contents of a 24-page SIRC document dated July 18, 1997, the Toronto Star reported that CSIS had abused and endangered a vulnerable refugee claimant by promising him asylum if he spied on fellow Tamils. While he had not yet gone through the regular immigration process, CSIS held up the possibility of his being admitted to Canada in exchange for his co-operation.
In addition, this SIRC report follows up on the fact that, in 1996, a person by the name of Thalaya Singam Sivakumar went public with his story. Mr. Sivakumar claimed that he worked for CSIS for five years because the agency promised he would be allowed to stay in Canada. But in 1994, CSIS broke off its relationship with Sivakumar and it now claims it never promised him anything.
The same SIRC report indicates that CSIS had intervened in the immigration process in other cases in order to recruit informants. A former high ranking member of CSIS, Ian Macewen, who headed the counterterrorist section for seven years said that CSIS tried to help its better informants. He added that, on four occasions during his years of service, CSIS intervened in the immigration process to obtain immigrant status for such people.
The Toronto Star , once again, reported on April 15 that another refugee claimant had accused CSIS of trying to force him into spying. The individual in question, Mr. Singh, comes from India, and more specifically the state of Punjab. His story is dangerously like the preceding one. He made a formal complaint against CSIS last month.
In the light of these facts, we are forced to condemn this practice of CSIS and request that these matters be studied thoroughly.
The minister announced earlier that a special Senate committee would review Canada's antiterrorist mechanisms. I would remind him that senators are appointed and do not represent the public. As they are accountable to no one, I question their ability to properly represent the concerns of Canadians.
I would ask the minister to replace the special Senate committee he wants to set up with a committee of the House of Commons.