Pierre De Savoye

[Privacy, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, given the fact that there already are several networks available in Canada and elsewhere, can the Minister of Industry tell us if he intends to ask his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to bring in a bill to ensure the protection of personal data in areas of federal jurisdiction?

[Privacy, October 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. The information highway project will increase the pooling of data banks holding personal information of all kinds and disclosure of that information to governments, businesses and institutions.

May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that privacy is not yet a fundamental right entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Given that there is no federal legislation protecting the confidentiality of personal data held by private businesses, can the Minister of Industry tell us what concrete action his department intends to take to address this problem which will likely get worse with the implementation of the information highway?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, how can the Solicitor General expect the review committee to shed some light on the activities of CSIS when its five members are only working part-time and fail to meet with major witnesses?

[Canadian Security Intelligence Service, October 19th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In approximately three weeks, the Security Intelligence Review Committee will report to the Solicitor General on its inquiry into the Bristow and McInnis affairs as well as allegations of illegal activities. Surprisingly, after one month of inquiry, the review committee has not yet gone back to the main actor, Mr. Doug Lewis, who was then Solicitor General.

Does the Solicitor General find it normal that on the eve of the publication of a report which is supposed to reassure the people, the review committee has not yet questioned the former Solicitor General even though he is the main clue to this puzzle?

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have time for three short quotes. First, I would like to quote the Arpin report to Ms. Frulla-Hébert, who was Quebec's minister of culture. It says: "We can conclude that overlap between the two levels of government clearly exists in terms of structures, programs, target groups and even legislation and fiscal measures". It talks about culture here. "We can even talk about duplication which leads to one-upmanship. The two governments have different policies and priorities for the same target groups. Measures taken by the federal government sometimes flatly contradict Quebec's options. Harmonizing the action of the two levels of government has always been difficult. The federal government never wanted to recognize Quebec's precedence in cultural affairs".

To conclude, Keith Kelly, National Director of the Canadian Conference of the Arts, said: "Telecommunication companies seem to be prepared to penetrate the world of broadcasting and the government must ensure that their activities have a beneficial impact on Canadian cultural industries. Reaffirming the separation of telecoms and broadcasting companies in these two bills simply freezes a status quo which is no longer appropriate today".

Mr. Speaker, that is why I spoke as I did this morning.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, to have a choice is great, but to have the right choice is even better. But the hon. member opposite seems prepared to consume anything, provided he has a choice. The Americans rely on the power of money and on competition to bring down the price of the cultural product in the United States and the price of using communications and telecommunications resources and infrastructures. And they succeeded at it. But a small price buys a small amount, as is unfortunately too often the case on this side of the border.

Our cultural industry has great merit and does great things, both in English Canada and in Quebec. The danger is that this bill, which basically gives no power to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, will have a disastrous effect on our culture and our cultural industry. I am pleased to see that the hon. member opposite shares my concerns. What makes me sad, however, is that he does not realize that this bill does not have enough teeth to deliver the goods.

I would be delighted if he interceded personally with the Minister of Canadian Heritage and his caucus to have this bill

withdrawn and replaced with a bill which would truly deliver the goods he was referring to.

[Department Of Canadian Heritage Act, October 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate a bill establishing the Department of Canadian Heritage and amending and repealing certain Acts. This bill is known as C-53.

Its title suggests that this bill simply reorganizes a department. The heritage minister himself presents it to us as a technicality. But in fact, this bill goes far beyond the mere restructuring of a department. Indeed, this bill proposes an inefficient and dangerous distribution of government responsibilities.

Let me highlight two important points where the bill is seriously off track. First, let me point out a serious inconsistency in the sharing of departmental responsibilities. Once again, the government is acting in such a way that the left hand will not know what the right hand is doing, since the sharing of responsibilities between the departments of Industry and Canadian Heritage raises various problems of jurisdiction, competition and policy.

To illustrate what I am saying, I shall now quote what the bill says about the department's field of jurisdiction. First, clause 4 says:

1. (1) The powers, duties and functions of the minister extend to and include-

In French, the bill says "de façon générale". What does this mean?

-all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department-

If it is already somewhere else, the heritage minister does not have to be concerned with it, and anyway it is "de façon générale".

-relating to (Canadian) identity and values, cultural development-

Let us look at some areas of jurisdiction. Subclause 2 says: d ) cultural heritage and industries, including performing arts, visual and audio-visual arts, publishing, sound recording, film, video and literature;

This subclause also includes broadcasting and the formulation of cultural policy as it relates to foreign investment.

My colleague said that it is a real mish-mash. You see, the minister's portfolio includes the arts, cultural industries, museums, heritage, broadcasting, physical fitness, amateur sport,

multiculturalism, the status of women, parks, historic sites and canals, state ceremonial and protocol and so on. I felt like saying "Alouette" at the end of this long list.

There is a problem and let me mention an obvious one, copyright. When it comes to culture, copyright must be strictly and effectively protected. Here, copyright comes under both Industry and Heritage; Industry is in Bill C-46. There is a problem.

I would also like to mention a document just recently published by the Canadian Conference of the Arts that points out, with respect to copyright, that the division of powers between industry and heritage will slow down the legislative process that should one day lead to fair compensation of artists and creators for the commercial use of their works. I understand the government's good intentions, but I quite simply do not believe there will be any concrete results.

Secondly, I would point out to this House that the bill does not address the cultural and societal impact of technological advances and in particular of the so-called electronic highway. The second objective set out in the Throne Speech with respect to the electronic highway is to strengthen Canada's cultural sovereignty and identity, in the singular, I note, as if there were only one cultural identity in Canada.

The stakes are high. Certainly, in Canada, Quebecers have a cultural identity. Can we speak of one cultural identity for the rest of Canada? I am not sure we can. Maritimers have their own values, heritage and history. Canadians from the Prairies have a different history, heritage and set of experiences that are also uniquely their own. The same can be said for Canadians on the West Coast and for Ontarians, with their very different history. This assumption of a single Canadian identity worries me.

I was speaking of the electronic highway, technological advances and the Department of Canadian Heritage. The latter, in its eagerness not to miss anything, is aiming in all directions, but is missing the real targets, the challenges we must meet in the next few years, not ten or twenty years down the road.

And here we should mention technology. Broadcasting, communications and telecommunications are being revolutionized. As I speak, the real stakes, the real players, the real pieces of this incredible puzzle are not immediately apparent. The problem is a multi-facetted one. On the one hand, there are the suppliers of telephone services and infrastructures, the telephone companies, of whom there are several in Canada. On the other hand, there are the cable distributors, which bring television to the homes of so many Canadians and Quebecers.

These two major players are in the process of merging and using computer technology to transmit their signals, with the result that there will no longer be any difference between my telephone conversation and a television broadcast. The electronic signals travelling through the wires will be the same.

The contents will change but the container will remain the same. This container will travel at very high speed on the optic fibre, which is basically a glass wire along which light can travel. Light can carry much more information in one second than electrical current. In fact, it is ten times faster. This means that a single fibre-optic cable can replace a huge number of copper wires. Then there is the coaxial cable of the type used by cable distributors. This cable is also capable of carrying large amounts of information.

With these cables, we are on the way to acquiring the physical capability to carry information of any type from point A to point B at astounding speeds. Technologically, this is feasible in the very short term. The problem is knowing what information will be carried.

If we are talking about telephone conversations, just between you and me, that will not make much of a difference. If the technology enables me to make banking transactions from my home, that is already an improvement on the present situation. If I can make banking transactions with other countries around the world, with electronic movement of capital, then the flow could be substantial and I understand that the Department of Industry would want to look into this. As a matter of fact, so should the Department of Finance and the Department of National Revenue.

In terms of programming, what would happen to cultural programs and television programs as we know them? Will we continue to have local antennas broadcasting according to the familiar sequence? I do not think so. We are headed for a drastic changeover. At present, you turn on your T.V., select a channel and watch what is on, without having any input regarding the sequence. This is as if you were to go to a restaurant, went in, checked the menu and were told: "Here are your choices of soups, your choices of appetizers, your choices of main dishes, your choices of desserts and your choices of beverages, and these are your only choices". Today, when you select say the CBC, you take what you are served. It is direct and simple, but if you do not like what is on, you turn the dial to another station. Again, you watch what that station is offering, in the sequence it has decided. But no more.

In just a few years, you will find yourself in a situation similar to being in a cafeteria. You will not tune in to a station; rather, you will look at a list of programs which will have been prerecorded-sometimes 20 or 30 years earlier, since there are already video libraries containing large numbers of prerecorded tapes-and you will decide what you want to see and when. This is what I call a cafeteria-style of selection. You want three desserts but no soup? Fine, the decision is yours. You want more

of these vegetables? You do not like turnip or broccoli? They are good for you. No, Mr. Speaker, I know that you do like turnip and broccoli. So, you choose what you want and then pay for it. This is how it will work.

The real problem is that each consumer will now decide what he or she will consume. The question then is: Who works in the cafeteria kitchen and prepares what is available? Who will prepare these programs and according to what standards? Who will define what is good and on what basis? Who will conduct inspections in the kitchens?

If this was done in a single facility housing these kitchens, we could go there and see what goes on, but these kitchens will be located all over the world. The information highway gives instant access to data located anywhere. We do not have the ability to control what producers do in other countries.

To what extent will we be able to ensure the second objective stated in the Speech from the Throne, namely the strengthening of Canada's sovereignty and cultural identity? I am not only referring to Quebec's cultural identity, which is a lot easier to protect since the majority of Quebecers are French-speaking. However, in the rest of Canada, where the majority speaks English, access to American production, for example, will be incredibly easy.

So far, the issue of Canadian content has been discussed in terms of broadcasting time. So much time is allocated to Canadian programs and so much time to American content. This is fine when you are in a restaurant with a fixed menu. The soup is Canadian, the potatoes are American, the steak comes from western Canada, while the dessert is home-made. However, when you are in a cafeteria, you choose what you want and there is no way of making sure that a consumer will opt for a quantity of Canadian products which is equal, greater or lower than that of foreign goods.

Of course, one can resort to the video store technique which consists in allocating a certain number of shelves to Canadian productions and leave the rest for foreign ones. However, nothing guarantees that customers will go for Canadian productions in a proportion that matches the space allocated on shelves. No one is at the door to control what customers choose.

We are in a similar situation with the information highway. At first glance, it seems that it will not be easy to control. However, in terms of technology, the Department of Industry is taking quite an interest in wires, cables, connections, interfaces and protocols, while the Department of Canadian Heritage is making pious wishes regarding our cultural identity.

This bill essentially gives the Minister of Canadian Heritage the right to talk about heritage without giving him the power to regulate or to intervene at any level. It does not give him any real power to ensure that Quebec and Canada's values are protected at a time when the stakes are extremely high because we find ourselves in a situation where we are facing the unknown.

I am thinking about this Minister of Canadian Heritage who, question period after question period, explains to us when we are wondering about the CRTC or the Museum of Nature that these organizations are independent, that they have their own set of rules and that they will do a good job. Well, do we really need a Minister of Canadian Heritage? I think I have expressed my concerns very clearly but, to give you a brief summary, allow me to say that at a time when the telecommunications and cable industries are converging, which threatens the level of cultural content from Canada and Quebec, it seems totally inconsistent that the mandate of the Department of Canadian Heritage be outdated with regard to these issues.

In conclusion, I support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Rimouski-Témiscouata to withdraw this bill which, I am sorry to say, is bland, colourless and has a strange smell to it.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague opposite say that they want to shed some light on actions by CSIS.

Let me remind the House that, on April 1, 1993, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River pointed out that Parliament's five-year review involved 117 recommendations and said: "While it certainly was not our belief that the government would immediately adopt all 117 recommendations, all of us who participated in the committee were disappointed that at the end of the day only one or two recommendations were actually formally adopted".

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is full of good intentions. I notice that he is the only one on the Liberal side to defend that cause. In fact, some other Liberal members were making very different statements not that long ago.

On March 19, 1992, when he was in opposition, the Liberal member for Scarborough West, said this regarding this issue: "We call upon CSIS and the minister to ensure, now that they can crawl, that future annual statements and reports contain more information, as promised by the minister himself, so that Canadians can have an informed public debate, be aware of the national security issues which face our nation, consider the major national security issues which face our country from year to year and how we are to handle them". The hon. member for Scarborough West was right on then, but the fact is that two years later Canadians, and even MPs in this House, still do not have the information requested.

Where are the Liberal members who were then asking for what we are asking for today? They keep silent. There is only one spokesperson for the Liberals and he has not been here long enough to realize that the problem has already persisted for too long and should have been resolved by now.

[Supply, September 29th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Manicouagan for sharing ten minutes of his speaking time with me. Allow me to add my voice to that of my Bloc Quebecois colleagues and ask this House to blame the government for refusing to set up a royal commission of inquiry on illegal activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service.

Let me remind you that CSIS was allotted a budget of about $205 million for fiscal year 1994-95. From a strictly accounting point of view, it is obvious that this House has not only the right but indeed the duty to look into the activities of this agency.

But we are not here to talk about accounting today. This debate is about the very activities of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, nothing less.

I should point out that this agency was established out of concern for transparency, to follow up on the recommendations of the McDonald Commission, which had uncovered a disgraceful set of unacceptable, if not downright illegal, practices and actions by the RCMP's very own security service.

Although the Canadian Security Intelligence Service was established with transparency in mind, there are nonetheless two major problems with CSIS. First, it does not have to account to Parliament for its budget, which it receives from Parliament. What this means is that we, who represent the people we were elected by, have no way of knowing how our tax money is spent. That is absurd!

The second problem with the accountability of CSIS to this Parliament relates to its intelligence gathering activities. Some may quickly answer back that the annual report CSIS tables every year is public and that a monitoring committee, commonly know as SIRC, reviews all its activities. Unfortunately, the reports tabled in this House in that respect are rather laconic, they do not say much. They are the epitome of the lack of transparency.

That is why the Bloc Quebecois considers that a royal commission of inquiry would give the people of Canada and Quebec a chance to determine whether their tax money is used properly and, more importantly, to check if CSIS has infiltrated and is trying to destabilize one or several political parties or other legitimate organizations. This is a serious matter. After all, an agency above suspicion, namely the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, did engage in such activities in the past.

We are justified in fearing that history will repeat itself. The Toronto Star recently uncovered a confidential note from an assistant to former Conservative Solicitor General Doug Lewis. According to this note, CSIS used an informant to obtain information on a report on the CBC television program ``The Fifth Estate''.

CSIS used and paid an informant by the name of Grant Bristow, who is one of the founders of Heritage Front, an extreme right-wing group dedicated to the unacceptable promotion of white supremacy. It has even been maintained that this individual tried to spy on the Canadian Jewish Congress. Worse yet, it was revealed that this mole, namely Mr. Bristow, found himself in the entourage of the Reform Party leader at least twice as a security guard.

Mr. Parrot, the president of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, believes that CSIS also spied on his union.

Tell me, is CSIS under control or has it lost its marbles? Is this a simple mishap or, on the contrary, just the tip of the iceberg?

There is no way to know. In parliamentary committee, officials clearly avoided and even refused to answer the legitimate questions asked by members of this House. The Liberal government tells us that the Security Intelligence Review Committee, SIRC for short, is checking out these allegations and will report to the Solicitor General within a month.

That is not good enough. The people must know that on September 13, when the Review Committee itself appeared before the House Standing Sub-Committee on National Security, committee members were bold enough to tell members that they could not reveal their findings and that only the Solicitor General could decide what should be made public. We are not naive.

The report or rather what will be left of it will obviously not tell us the whole truth. What about transparency, Madam Speaker? The Bloc Quebecois is not alone in demanding a public inquiry. Several very respectable organizations have called for a royal commission of inquiry. If I may, I would like to quote from an article published on September 10 in the Quebec City newspaper Le Soleil : ``More and more groups are calling for an independent investigation into the allegations against CSIS. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and the Simon Wisenthal Centre all argue that the government should set up a mini-commission based on the McDonald Commission which investigated the former RCMP security service in the 1970s. To ensure public confidence, someone should take a fresh look at this whole affair, said Mr. Borovoy, head of the Civil Liberties Association''.

The Government of Canada also finances other intelligence agencies. In addition to CSIS, with its $205-million budget, there is the RCMP's Criminal Intelligence Directorate, with a budget of around $5 million, the Security and Intelligence Bureau of the Department of Foreign Affairs, with a budget of around $10 million, and finally the top secret Communications Security Establishment of National Defence.

This famous establishment, the CSE, is governed by no law specifying its mandate or its powers, nor is it subject to any control mechanism. It is not even required to answer to Parliament. In spite of that, the CSE spends between $200 and $300 million in the greatest secrecy, without having to account for it, because it is so secret that it does not even exist in legislation. According to our information, this establishment has two mandates: the first is called INFOSEC, whereby the CSE gives the government technical advice, reports and assistance on the security of the telecommunications of federal departments. The second is code-named SIGINT; under this heading, information is collected on the activities, intentions and capabilities of foreign governments and on individuals and companies in various fields.

We are not being paranoid, but when we see an organization like CSIS, which is covered by legislation and faces serious charges of infiltrating a political party and spying on other legitimate organizations, I am very inclined to suspect that other secret services which are not governed by legislation can do even more and much worse.

As we just saw, these intelligence agencies have a combined budget of half a billion dollars and members of this House are unable to tell taxpayers if this money is spent in the best interest of the public and, most important, in accordance with the laws of the land.

Given this flagrant lack of openness, this flagrant lack of accountability to parliamentarians and citizens, this flagrant lack of control over the activities of Canadian intelligence agencies, especially CSIS, it is imperative to review the process by which these agencies report to Parliament, to review the CSIS Act, to review the process of appointing members to the Review Committee, and in so doing, members of this Parliament can ensure that the interests and rights and fundamental freedoms of the people of Canada and of Quebec are respected.

It would have been very simple to let members be informed openly, but since they are denied access to the truth, only one solution remains: the people must now be informed through a royal commission of inquiry on CSIS.