George S. Rideout

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, another petition from my riding requests that Parliament not amend the human rights code dealing with sexual orientation.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, from my own riding I have a petition in which the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure that the provisions in the Criminal Code prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that no change be made in the law.

[Petitions, February 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions. The first is on behalf of the Minister of Natural Resources, a petition from Edmonton calling upon Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Energy Efficiency, February 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the House this government's commitment to energy efficiency. At the same time Canadians are concerned with a secure supply of reasonably priced energy and the environmental impacts of energy supply, transportation and use.

In an effort to move toward sustainable development these objectives must be balanced. Improved energy efficiency can contribute greatly to meeting our long term environmental goals.

We have begun the process to improve efficiency in our facilities through the federal buildings initiative. Cabinet ministers are committed to this initiative. The Minister of Natural Resources has undertaken to make Natural Resources Canada the most energy efficient department in the federal government.

At the same time, we must strike a balance between economic development and improvements, for the environment's sake. With state-of-the-art technology and co-operation from all sectors, we can map out a strategy for Canada and rise to these important challenges.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, the second petition deals with assisted suicides.

It is a pleasure to present both of these petitions.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The first petition deals with the prayer in Parliament.

[Communications Security Establishment, December 13th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise and speak on this motion of the member for Scarborough-Rouge River to deal with an issue which I am sure does not capture the hearts and minds of a whole lot of people.

I had the opportunity to work on a parliamentary committee in the previous government. We were responsible for a five-year review of CSIS. This motion really emanates from the lack of courage as I would put it of the previous government to deal with this issue of oversight over agencies that can collect data and information on individual Canadians.

In that sense I welcome the opportunity to be here this evening and talk about the proposal that would see the Communications Security Establishment, CSE, fall within the oversight provisions of SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

This recommendation really flows from our committee recommendation which was unanimously adopted by all parties in the previous Parliament. I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Rouge River for keeping the issue in front of Parliament and in front of Canadians and bringing forward a motion that I hope all members of the House will see their way clear to support.

The effects of the motion quite frankly would see that CSE would fall under oversight. People will ask what is oversight and what does it mean. It is a protection for individual Canadians and it is really Parliament overseeing agencies that can collect data and information and even conversations of individual Canadians as they go about their daily lives.

I think the issue was put quite nicely by the Library of Parliament in its paper on CSE. I would like to read one section of it because it does put the issues fairly succinctly. I am quoting page 14:

Ward Alcock told the House of Commons subcommittee on national security in June 1993 that CSE is a foreign intelligence collection agency. The very nature of its work depends upon a degree of secrecy. To the extent to which it works is not secret, it loses its capacity to function and to collect information that is of use and value to the Government of Canada.

This statement puts the key issue into its most basic terms: how can a government institution that functions most effectively in the shadows be held publicly accountable without compromising its efficacy? This question is especially important when it relates to an agency with the capacity to violate the rights and freedoms of Canadians.

The opinion that was given by the Library of Parliament was also buttressed by a well known author, Richard Cleroux, who recently wrote a book, "Official Secrets", a look at the spy agencies and other agencies that were involved in collecting data on Canadians and to protect Canadians from untoward activities by foreign governments and foreign agencies.

While I hate to read a rather lengthy quote, I think Mr. Cleroux in his book captures the spirit of what is involved and what this motion is trying to do. I quote pages 77 and 78:

The CSE, which is considered the only government agency more secret than CSIS, employs more than 1,700 people, and uses highly sophisticated radio and telecommunications equipment to listen in simultaneously to thousands of embassy, ship and airline telephone and telecommunications transmissions and voice conversations across Canada and around the world.

The CSE functions as a funnel. Everything that is telecommunications in Canada is sucked into it. It needs no judicial warrants because it is part of the military, not part of CSIS.

Later on the same page:

Most of the information picked up by CSE is in the form of electronic data rather than voice conversation. Ninety-nine per cent is shipped wholesale, without ever being analysed here, to the U.S. National Security Agency in Fort Meade, Virginia. The Americans in turn tell the Canadians what they think the Canadians should know.

That is a very clear and concise statement of what is happening with CSE as noted by the author Mr. Cleroux. It points to why we need some oversight, be it parliamentary or otherwise.

This motion says it should be SIRC that carries out that particular function.

We had the privilege of having Stuart Farson advise us and do research for us as we looked at the five-year review of CSIS. He was concerned that CSE was without any parliamentary oversight and that the question of Canadian rights being possibly trampled was very important. In effect he made recommendations to us as a committee that we should look at including CSE in the oversight function.

As we look at what some of the authors have to say, both Mr. Cleroux and Stuart Farson in his paper "Canadian Security Intelligence in the Eighties", it becomes clear that we have a number of agencies. CSE is well-known and clearly defined, being discussed in Parliament and elsewhere. There are also other agencies within the RCMP and other departments of government that have no oversight. That circumstance only exists in Canada. The United States Congress has an oversight committee as well as do other countries in the world.

It is important that we protect Canadian rights. We can still protect secrecy. It is the beauty of the circumstance with the Security Intelligence Review Committee that only those things that should be made public are in fact made public. It is an independent committee of independent people who are the eyes and ears of Parliament.

I go further and support the member for Scarborough-Rouge River in his efforts to have some parliamentary oversight. While there is some duplication, in the long run it is beneficial that we have that oversight in order to protect the rights of Canadians. When one thinks somebody could be listening into a telephone conversation or the electric transmission on a fax machine without having a warrant, something is fundamentally wrong with the circumstance. It requires parliamentary or in this case SIRC oversight. That is what the motion will hopefully accomplish.

I would refer members to our report on CSIS and recommendation 87. It says:

The Committee recommends that Parliament 1) formally establish the CSE by statute-

This is not the case presently.

and 2) establish SIRC as the body responsible for monitoring, reviewing and reporting to Parliament on the activities of the CSE concerning its compliance with the laws of Canada.

As it says in the write-up:

The Committee sees no reason in principle, however, why the security and intelligence arms of the Department of National Defence should not be reviewed by SIRC.

Personally I support the position. I voted in favour of it when the committee looked at it and I support it now. All Canadians need to be protected. These are important rights that should not be easily trampled on. We do not need some big funnel in the sky scooping up all of the information and transporting it to the United States for analysis.

I would recommend the motion to all members of this House.

[Hibernia, December 2nd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period dealing with questions on Hibernia there was a request to table the report of the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.

I have the pleasure to deliver, in both official languages, the report as well as, in both official languages, a copy of all the contracts that have been given to the province of Quebec in relation to the Hibernia project.

[Corrections And Conditional Release Act, December 1st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, when we look at the frequency and the situation of the disease, we must consider not only where we are but also where we have come from and where our strategy to reduce the frequency of this disease should take us.

In the 1930s we were faced with death rates, not incidence rates but death rates, of 700 per 100,000 population among Canadian Indians.

An extensive program to discover and treat active cases of TB was begun in 1938. In the late 1940s the necessary funding and expertise were provided, new sanitoria and nursing stations were built and aggressive case finding, extensive vaccination and new treatment regimes were begun.

These early efforts bore fruit and today the mortality rate is almost negligible while the incidence of TB has been dramatically reduced. In 1992 the rate was 60 per 100,000 population using official population figures for the First Nations communities.

The reason we were allocating additional funds to implement a national strategy for the elimination of aboriginal tuberculosis was because the decrease in rates had stalled. There remains a number of active TB cases in older people who continue to harbour tuberculosis and who become infectious as they get older and suffer from other diseases and debilitating conditions.

The government has been spending $1 million per year to address this problem and has allocated an additional $2.8 million over the next three years.

While the spread of TB to other people is facilitated by overcrowding and other personal and environmental conditions, the main way to eliminate the disease from the population is to find active cases at an early stage and treat them before the bacterium is spread to contacts, particularly young children who are especially susceptible.

The strategy which this department in partnership with First Nations communities is putting in place aims to reduce the incidence of TB to less than 20 per 100,000 by the year 2000 and to eliminate the disease by the year 2010.

[Petitions, November 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, this is Mining Week, which allows us to publicize our efforts to keep mining in Canada.

I have a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 that calls on Parliament to take action which will see employment grow in the mining sector, that exploration will be promoted and we can rebuild Canada's mineral reserves, sustain mining communities and keep mining in Canada.