Mr. Speaker, let there be no doubt about it, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is a good thing per se. We are not questioning the fact that we need such an agency. The problem is that somehow CSIS is the offspring of the RCMP. If the past is any indication of the future, there is trouble ahead. This is the reason why we want to make sure the agency is properly monitored.
There are many examples illustrating the fact that with this kind of agency, it is important to have appropriate safeguards to differentiate between a security mandate and the mandate to defend a particular government or party.
In the past, on several occasions, the RCMP interfered with the democratic activities of political parties, which resulted in the creation of CSIS. When the membership list of the Parti Quebecois was stolen in 1973, I was probably on it together with a number of members of this House. It was totally illegal and irrelevant.
Following that, CSIS was created, but it seems that history repeats itself. We now have a critical situation in which a well-known political party, an opposition party, the Reform Party, is being spied on and we do not seem to be able to shed light on the whole thing. This is not due to bad faith on the part of parliamentarians or the committee members, but rather because not enough light is being shed.
When we ask for a royal commission, the argument regarding its costs is no more valid that in the case of the Canadian justice system. You could say that it would be easier to solve problems by chopping off people's heads and hands than by bringing them to court and allowing them to present their defence. You could easily say that. Similarly, you could say that a royal commission is not worth it because it costs too much. Some principles are not a matter of cost and, in all fairness, it has to be mentioned.
For example, in the present case, if someone acting for CSIS has infiltrated the Reform Party and in so doing ultimately influenced the election results, even if only in a limited way, it is casting doubt on the very basis of our system and I believe it warrants a thorough examination. We must ensure there is no unacceptable situation casting a shadow on our democratic system.
There is another reason for ensuring that members of Parliament are able to verify more directly and specifically if agencies like the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service abide by their mandate. Let me read a few excerpts from the agency's 1993 public report. We can see that, sometimes, members of agencies such as this one share opinions that are very close to being partisan or akin to a particular vision about the country's evolution. Those who do not think the same way are outlawed. They can no longer be full members of society.
For instance, we can read that "more important is the fact that the increase in the number of independent power centres in the world brings forth an increase in the number of potential threats". In other words, everything would be fine if there was only one country in the world and if everyone was alike. It would be so much easier to administer, but that is not the way it is. There is a value judgment about a society's future in that kind of statement. I think that if, on the one hand, an agency like the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is going to adopt such
an attitude, we, on the other hand, should make sure that a good eye is kept on it and that changes be made if need be.
There is another excerpt that makes me wonder and, in my view, argues for monitoring. It says that, while the RCMP is responsible for enforcing the law, CSIS collects information and provides operational or tactical advice on individuals, groups or activities that may constitute threats to the security of Canada to enable the government and police authorities to act.
It would be important to know what they mean in that kind of agency by "groups or activities that can constitute threats to the security of Canada". I could be of the personal view that what constitutes the greatest threat to the security of Canada is the way the country is run, a view the government would certainly not share. The agency may consider that such or such political party constitutes a threat to Canada, as seems to have been the case. That too is unacceptable.
So, based on the experience of past abuses by the RCMP and the attempt to remedy the problem by establishing CSIS, one critical step remains to be taken: we must get to the bottom of the matter and know everything there is to know about the agency, its mandate, the way it carries it out and all this information must be made available to the people in whom the public has placed its confidence, that is, the elected members of Parliament.
Some may say that reports are made to the Solicitor General CSIS activities, but these reports are confidential. We can understand that certain aspects must remain confidential, that certain matters must not be debated publicly, but reports could be submitted in camera to a parliamentary committee responsible for ensuring that things are done according to the law and depending on the circumstances.
I will give you examples of reports filed by the SIRC, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which are classified secret or top secret. That is how they are classified. They deal with security screening on university campuses. It is rather important to know why this kind of agency is involved in security screening on campus. Is there another witch hunt on? Is what happened in the United States 30 or 35 years ago going to happen here now? What makes one person on campus a threat to the security of Canada and not another? There may be very clear-cut cases as well as abuse. We need to make sure appropriate control is exercised over all this.
There is another study whose title in itself is so ambiguous, it would be worthwhile to look into it. I am talking about the CSIS regional studies. What do they need regional studies for? Did they find that the people living in a region where the unemployment rate reaches 20, 25 per cent are more dangerous than the residents of a community with an unemployment rate of 10 or 12 per cent? What is in these studies? These are things we should be able to look into.
There is another document I would like to mention, namely the review by SIRC of CSIS activities involving Aboriginal Canadians. Why should Aboriginal Canadians be the subject of separate investigations? Why are such investigations being conducted? When they told us the titles of these studies and said they received studies on this, they suggested that there were specific reasons for investigating these groups, that is, university campuses, Aboriginal Canadians and various other groups, although there is no evidence that the report eventually submitted contains any accusations. All we know is that there was an investigation.
It is a little like when someone is accused of something in a newspaper, only to be acquitted three months later. The acquittal headline is one inch high while the accusation is announced in two-inch-high letters but the effect is the same. The decision has already had a negative effect, which I think is quite unacceptable.
I would like to give you another quote from the public report which outlines what we should expect in the future. It says that in general, the world has become less predictable and the power, more diffuse. It means that our society is undergoing all kinds of changes so that the people monitoring them must follow global developments closely and be able to understand exactly what they mean.
Without judging the quality of SIRC's current membership, it can be said that the current situation is rather hard to accept because some of these people have been appointed on the recommendation of parties sitting in the House of Commons during the last Parliament. No Bloc or Reform member was involved in appointing these people. SIRC members have very few links with the current Parliament, even with the Liberals, because most of them were appointed from the Tories' list.
For all these reasons, I think that the government should agree to the opposition's request so that we can meet the goal set when CSIS was founded, namely to achieve the most appropriate level of transparency in the delicate field of security and prevent past excesses from occurring again in the future, especially now that Canada faces major political challenges. The democratic debate must in no way be undermined by institutions exceeding their mandates.
