House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was section.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Liberal MP for Scarborough Southwest (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions November 16th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from the same community concerning what is being shown on television.

The undersigned pray and call on Parliament to ensure that the CRTC recognizes that Canadians do not need to be shocked to be entertained. Foul language, excessive violence and explicit sex are not necessary to provide quality entertainment.

Petitions November 16th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. The first petition contains 61 signatures from citizens and residents of the town of Frankfurt, Ontario.

They pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Communications Security Establishment November 15th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased to second the motion put forward by my colleague and neighbour from Scarborough-Rouge River. I did so because I believe that as always my colleague has approached this matter from a clear, analytical, legal point of view, has investigated the situation to his satisfaction and has proposed a solution that he believes and I believe to be reasonable.

What I want to do in the 10 minutes that I have is just take a look quickly at the nature of the motion, why I support it and what the problems are that I see. If this motion were to pass it would send a signal to the government that the Communications Security Establishment should be under the watchful eye, if I can put it that way, of the Security Intelligence Review Committee which is a civilian review committee made up of privy councillors. Their current job is to keep a watchful eye on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

In order to make some sense of this, we have to know what we are talking about. What is the Communications Security Establishment? It sounds like a very laundered, nice, clean phrase. To me it is like a shadow. One can see a shadow if one knows where to look but one cannot touch it, feel it, speak to it. One cannot get answers from it and that is a problem. Like a shadow it can loom large, it can be small, it can move away. Like a shadow it can be there when we do not even notice it. I am not saying it is a problem, it is a potential problem.

What does it do? What is the Communications Security Establishment? In order to know what it does, we have to look at something called foreign intelligence. What is foreign intelligence? I am quoting from the Department of the Solicitor General: "Foreign intelligence refers to intelligence or information concerning the capabilities, intentions or activities of foreign states, corporations or persons. It may include information of a political, economic, military, scientific or social nature and can produce information with security implications".

From everything I know about CSE, it certainly would fit within that definition. It has two functions. Before I get to those two functions, I want to remind this House that the CSE does not exist alone in the world. There are comparable organizations in other countries and it might be interesting to let the House know what those organizations are so that we can see where Canada fits in.

In the United States there is such an agency. It is called the National Security Agency. In the United Kingdom it is called the Government Communications Headquarters. In Australia it is called the Defence Signals Directorate and in New Zealand it is called the Government Communications Security Bureau.

Communications is the link here but it is not communicating. It is listening to communications. The question whose communications is it listening to? Might it be our own private communications? We do not know.

How did CSE come to be? How did the shadow come to exist? Was it an act of the Parliament of Canada?-no. It was by executive order, by order in council. This is a very significant point because it is therefore not a creature of statute and I want to refer to that near the end of my remarks.

Having been created by order in council, what is its purpose? What does it do? Well, we are told that it has a signals intelligence capability sometimes known as SIGINT, that is offensive in nature. I guess that means it is intrusive. It listens in on conversations. Then there is an information or communications security component sometimes known as INFOSEC or COMSEC. These sound like codes to launch missiles from a site in Boulder, Colorado. INFOSEC or COMSEC is a defensive capability.

We are told by Ward Elcock, who at that time was the deputy clerk and in charge of at least a portion of CSE, that one of the functions of COMSEC deals with security of communications of the Government of Canada. It is very important. The second responsibility is the collection of signals intelligence which is intended to provide the government with foreign intelligence on the diplomatic, military, economic, security and commercial activities, intentions and capabilities of foreign governments, individuals and corporations. I suppose there is nothing wrong with that. We want to make sure we are protected in this country.

That is what it does, assuming anybody can understand INFOSEC, COMSEC, SIGINT, et cetera. Presumably the people who work there-the chief as he is called or perhaps it is a she now, we do not know-they know what it is supposed to do.

One might say fine, we know how it was created. We know what it does. To whom does it report? That is a legitimate question. Since there is no statute one can assume it does not report to Parliament. Guess what? We are right. It does not report to Parliament. Presumably it reports to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of National Defence is supposed to report to Parliament. The chief, who I mentioned before also reports to the deputy minister of National Defence for financial and administrative matters interestingly enough, and also to the deputy clerk, subtitled security and intelligence and counsel, in the Privy Council Office for other matters.

What is the missing link? The people of Canada. The missing link is this Parliament. Is that a problem? As I see it there is a problem. There is no legislative mandate upon which to found

the intrusive actions of this particular agency, or I should say potentially intrusive, on Canadians.

There are no written rules by way of statute or regulations. There may be written rules that the chief from time to time issues or the deputy clerk, or the deputy minister, or the Minister of National Defence. If there are written rules in effect they are unknown rules, certainly unknown by the people of Canada.

Without public scrutiny I maintain there is a credible argument to say there are no proper controls. After all if everything is done behind closed doors how can one ever know if the controls were properly applied? What is more important, there is no monitoring to ensure that laws are not being broken and that if laws are broken that there is some mechanism to deal with that. To me that is a major potential problem.

Contrast this to our own spy agency. We do not call this a spy agency; we call it the Communications Security Establishment. However our own spy agency which we acknowledge is a spy agency was created under statute by this Parliament. It was given rules by this Parliament. It reports to a minister who then reports to this House yearly. It is required in effect to be monitored by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which as I said is a civilian agency.

I have to ask myself, if it is good enough for our spy agency why is it not good enough for our Communications Security Establishment? Indeed, this is not some flash that I had. This was recognized in the parliamentary committee report "In Flux but not in Crisis" that my various colleagues have talked about. It recommended not only as this motion does that SIRC should review CSE's work, but also that CSE should be formally created by statute.

I certainly support both of those recommendations which indeed were unanimous. I cannot see any logical basis in a democracy not to have the Parliament of Canada through some committee review this agency. I am pleased therefore to support the motion.

Petitions November 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is signed primarily by residents of Smiths Falls, Perth and Lanark in Ontario. They have asked me to present this petition for them.

The petitioners ask that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

I concur with all three of these petitions.

Petitions November 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed primarily by residents of the town of Frankford, Ontario who have requested me to bring this petition to the attention of the House.

They have asked that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

Petitions November 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions.

The first petition is signed primarily by constituents of Scarborough West but also surrounding areas. They pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Act to include the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

Petitions September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my third petition is from some good people in town of Frankford, Ontario, who have asked me to present this petition on their behalf and I am pleased to do so.

They pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Act to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

Petitions September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my second petition is from people in my riding who pray that Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Petitions September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions today. The first one is from the people of my riding who pray that Parliament act immediately to extend protection to the unborn child by amending the Criminal Code to extend the same protection enjoyed by born human beings to unborn human beings.

Witness Protection Act September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am very honoured to stand today to close the debate on my Bill C-206, the protection of witnesses in Canada.

I want to begin by thanking the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General of Canada who was kind enough to second my bill when debate began on April 20, 1994.

Throughout the three hours that the bill has been debated, eight of my Liberal colleagues, two members of the Official Opposition and four members of the Reform Party have spoken. Each and every one of them has spoken in favour of the principle of the bill.

Many good points have been raised. Many suggestions have been made. I am the first to acknowledge that the bill, since it was written by me, is certainly not perfect and that it can be improved. Should the House decide to pass the bill at second reading and send it to a committee, I look forward to discussing the suggestions that my colleagues have made to help make this a better bill so that witnesses can be protected and thereby strengthen the justice system.

I am particularly thankful that the Official Opposition has so clearly and unequivocally come out both on April 20 and today and stated that it would support the bill, as have my friends in the Reform Party.

I want to briefly remind everybody in the House and those watching that this is an area which has been left alone, which is quite unusual. In fact there is no legislative basis anywhere in Canada for the protection of witnesses. Although there is no law, there are approximately 21 individual witness protection plans across the country, as we heard from the hon. member for Kootenay East, all being run by various departments under different rules.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police plan, which has no legislative basis, has expanded. In 1986, for example, $569,000 was spent by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for witness protection programs. In 1993, a few years later, $3,800,000 was spent. What for? This is under the rubric of drug enforcement.

Under the rubric of drug enforcement it is clear that over the years it has become useful in the capturing and convicting of criminals to help witnesses who would otherwise fear for their lives to be relocated.

This bill, the protection of witnesses, will help to convict criminals and get them off the street by encouraging people to come forward and testify, knowing that they will not be subject to further reprisal.

There were 1,455 unsolved murders in this country between the years 1980 and 1992, almost 1,500 unsolved murders. I hope that this bill will help to solve some of those tragedies.

I got a call from a number of people in hiding over the course of debate of this bill but one in particular struck me. It was a mother with a number of children who is currently in her third province of residence because of this hodge-podge of protection plans. She was a witness testifying against her husband in a murder trial. As a result of that her husband was convicted. Her husband is looking for her, as are her husband's associates. She was relocated to the province of Ontario with her children, living in fear and hiding.

Unfortunately because of the fact that there is no legislative basis it is not that easy to get new passports. It is not that easy to get a new social insurance number. It is not that easy to invent a new identity. Her husband's associates, even though he is in prison, have been able to trace her in two provinces and now she is running to her third. We do not want to see that happen to families and to victims. I hope this bill will help to alleviate that.

In closing, I want to remind the House that should members be of the view that this bill merits passage at this time, it means the principle of the bill is accepted and the matter proceeds to committee where it will be studied carefully. There we will be able to look at the experience in the United States. We know that our friends in Australia have just this year introduced a very similar bill to this one. They are struggling with that as well.

I am sure the committee will be able to carefully examine the good points made in the debate and to examine the experiences in the United States and Australia. We should able to come up with a plan that will protect victims and their families, witnesses and their families, and will help to convict those who deserve to be convicted.

I thank everybody in the House and I ask for thoughtful consideration in the passage of my bill at this time.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee.)