1984-03-09

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-17, the Insolvency Act, was introduced for first reading in the House of Commons on January 31 of this year. However, the Government has not seen fit since that time to bring forth the Bill for second reading and debate. The only conclusion that I can come to, Mr. Speaker, is that the Government is not giving this Bill high enough priority for active consideration.
Many segments of our society, including the farming community, are counting on this Bill to offer some direction and some relief to individuals who may be on the verge of bankruptcy.
Procrastination by the Government on this Bill has been responsible for many producers going out of business and losing everything that took them years to accomplish. To add insult to injury, it has come to my knowledge from constituents in my riding that some government Members and some staff members of Ministers are spreading untruths and utter falsehoods, to the effect that the Opposition is preventing the passage of the Bill. This is utter nonsense, Mr. Speaker, and all they are doing is putting even greater distance between themselves and their credibility with the Canadian people. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government to stop this nonsense and bring forth Bill C-17 so that it can be debated and passed into law as soon as possible.


MEDICAL RESEARCH
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, medical history was made in Toronto this week. A team of eight researchers, led by bio-chemist Tak Mak and post doctoral fellow Yusuke Yanagi, revealed to the world that their group has discovered the key to the human body's immunilogical system and thus have handed to the world's scientists the tools necessary to
unlock the medicine chest of curatives for such haunting diseases as AIDS, arthritis, leukemia and other cancers.
I think this incredible news will go a long way to dispel the fears of many who wondered whether Terry Fox's fabulous gift could be made adequate use of here in Canada. Our country's bio-medical research community has proven to all that they are of world class calibre and deserving of world class recognition.
As well, maybe now Terry's Marathon of Hope will bear the fruit he so passionately strove for, as Canadian scientists and, indeed, those the world over, can now undertake a giant leap forward the likes of which has not been witnessed by humanity since the invention of the microscope.
Dr. Mak and his team, the Canadian Cancer Institute, the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, and the Medical Research Council of Canada, deserve this Chamber's heartiest congratulations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the Constitutional Conference on Aboriginal Rights which started yesterday, I would like to point out Hon. Members that the Provinces should put more emphasis on the need to reach an agreement with the federal Government that will confirm the rights of the first inhabitants of this country. Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to understand the requests of the native peoples. Considering the vagueness that seems to prevail at this Conference, I think that in the next few hours, the provinces should do a great deal more to ensure that they have something to show for their work at the end of the two-day Constitutional Conference on Aboriginal Rights.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish to draw the attention of the House to the need for recognition by the Premier of Newfoundland of the hunting, trapping and fishing rights of Indians in Labrador, especially of those living on the Quebec side, because at the present time, they are being prevented from living the kind of life they lead on the Newfoundland side of Labrador. I therefore hope that the Premier of Newfoundland will listen to those requests. It is very simple . .. Newfoundland would take the same approach already being taken by Quebec, which is to

March 9, 1984
let the caribou and the Indians cross provincial boundaries freely and let the Indians use their skills to make a living.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, a crucial factor in Third World development is the work of women. In Africa, 80 per cent of the agricultural work is done by women. In all Third World countries over 50 per cent of the non-imported food is grown by women. In Benin, Burundi, and Liberia, significantly more women are in the labour force than there are men. In Kenya, Lesotho, and Botswana, women head one-third of the families. Actually, over one billion women in Third World countries live in rural areas with agriculture as their primary occupation. In Southeast Asia and West Africa women dominate rural market trade upon which local economies and families are sustained. Third World women have a vital influence on the quality of education, nutrition, and health care.
Cultural patterns in both the North and the South have conditioned people to regard men as the primary movers in economic and social progress. This cultural mind-set has blinded many people to the enormous latent power of women to effect change, if given a helping hand.
At this time the president of CIDA is a woman, Margaret Catley-Carlson. Women are rare in other significant areas of CIDA, however. I suggest that this policy be rescinded and that a far greater emphasis be placed on Canadian women in leadership roles in CIDA programs and projects.
I call on the Government to act on recent OECD guiding principles to aid agencies so that women are brought into decision-making for the design, development, and implementation of projects. Take affirmative action. Place more women in decision-making roles in CIDA. Canada's program could produce much more and better development.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, the labour force figures released this morning show that once again the number of people without jobs in Canada has risen.
Unemployment hits hardest at young people, and at heads of families who grow discouraged and despondent from weeks and months of looking for jobs, without success. One group which must be of particular concern are single parent families, headed by women who have lost their jobs. Their numbers
have increased in the past year, and their needs have become greater.
MO)
With rising rates of divorce and rising rates of unemployment, there are now substantial numbers of women who are being told that their jobs have been terminated, while their responsibilities for the needs and support of their children increase.
The average income of families headed by men is approximately $34,000. The average income of families headed by women is just half, or $17,000. Some 45 per cent of female headed families live in poverty. That surely is tragic enough, Mr. Speaker, but to have that tragedy compounded by increasing unemployment among their ranks is totally unacceptable.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct some erroneous information which the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) has left with the House in his statements and questions on March 7 regarding the SARP Program, the production of rifles in Kitchener for the Canadian Armed Forces.
The Hon. Member claimed that rifles being made by Diemaco in Kitchener are costing the taxpayers twice what it would cost if we purchased them from the United States. Does the Hon. Member realize that his figures are quite inaccurate and based only on what was in the press? He has simply divided the number of rifles into the total price of the contract. If he had looked past the press reports, he would have been able to realize that over $30.1 million of the $107 million contract is money being used for engineering, design, tooling and gauging, spare parts, training aids, cleaning kits, and preservation packaging.


Mr. Forrestall:: It is still part of the cost of the rifle.


Peter Joseph Lang: The actual cost of the Canadian rifle is $850.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, it is not.


Peter Joseph Lang: The cost of buying the rifle in the United States was a low estimate at $820. This did not include the massive subsidization of the production of those rifles by the United States Defence Department. Is the Hon. Member for Calgary Centre a spokesman for United States protectionism against Canadian jobs? This contract is providing long-term employment for-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but the time allotted to him has expired.
March 9, 1984


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the lesson for today, Sir, is, "Put not thy faith in the NDP". This is the sad lesson which is currently being learned in Manitoba as the socialist Government of that Province lays off hundreds of provincial public servants. Woe betide any public employees who vote NDP because they think their job will thereby be secured. The truth of the matter is the exact opposite. NDP mismanagement and socialist stagnation results inevitably not only in the reduction of jobs in the private sector but, because public revenues decline, it means that public services must be cut back and that public servants must be thrown out of work. The New Democratic Party socialist Government means joblessness.


Mr. Waddell:: I will resist replying to that. It is nice to be taken seriously, though.


IMMIGRATION
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like Members to see this booklet I hold in my hand. It is entitled "Your Passport to Canada". It has the Canadian Coat of Arms on it, and says "Passport" in English and "Passeport" French. It looks like an official Canadian document. Of course it is not. It is put out by the rip-off immigration lawyers in Hong Kong.
This is a matter which I raised in the House of Commons on October 31 last. I suggested to the Minister that he should do something about it for people in Hong Kong who are paying $15,000 to $30,000, in the case of a panic situation, to get some advice about coming to Canada. They have no way of verifying the information they received. They have no place to complain if they get the wrong information. It is a bad situation. The Minister is too busy running for the Liberal leadership. He has not done anything about it.
I would like to suggest to the House what the House could do and, more specifically, the Bar Associations in British Columbia and Ontario. I believe we can regulate lawyers who practise outside Canada. They have offices in Canada, and they are registered with the Bar Association in Canada. I propose we do three things: first, that Canadian lawyers be forced to register in Canada if they are practising immigration law outside Canada; second, we should apply Canadian advertising codes, the kind of things we apply to the Bar in Canada, which should apply overseas as well; third, when a client is served, the client should have a chance to complain, should be told where he or she can complain, and-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.
Oral Questions
S)



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration on the day scheduled for release of the labour force data, I will direct my questions to the Minister of Finance.
The figures are very disturbing. They show that for the fourth month actual unemployment has increased. The decline in the value of the dollar means we are facing higher interest rates, which will further exacerbate the situation. Given the fact we now have almost 1.4 million unemployed, up more than 100,000 over last year, and given the fact we are now facing higher interest rates, which means the rate of economic recovery has not only slowed down but has stalled, is the Minister of Finance satisfied that his Budget can address the situation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised the Hon. Member would want to choose only the darkest possible description of the situation. The figures this morning are encouraging in many regards. As he knows, the labour force has known a large increase of .6 per cent last month. A large number of Canadians are coming back into the work force. What he has not mentioned is that employment has grown very substantially during the month of February. We created 54,000 new jobs during that month. Youth employment went up by 1 per cent, and employment in the goods producing industries went up by 1.5 per cent. Employment in the construction industry went up by 5.4 per cent. The month of Feburary was a very positive month for job creation.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of those figures and those I produced in the Budget, that we will know a decline in unemployment this year and a very significant rise in the number of jobs created during 1984. The measures I announced in my Budget. were predicated on the type of figures released today, the employment statistics, and I am confident that this year we will achieve a level of unemployment not higher than the one I forecast. As a matter of fact I am confident that, with co-operation from all economic sectors, we will achieve a lower unemployment figure than even the one I forecast in my Budget.


COMPARISON WITH UNITED STATES
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have not tried to present the worst case scenario; I just tried to present the facts. The Minister does not seem to be aware of the facts. He does not seem to be aware of the fact that we are still 352,000 jobs below the peak reached before the recession started.

March 9, 1984
Oral Questions
How can the Minister explain our economic performance in Canada compared with that of the U.S.? Not only have they picked up the jobs they lost, they have increased their job creation by 2.8 per cent. If we had the same performance in Canada, we would have 450,000 more people working. In actual fact unemployment in the U.S. continued to go down, from 8 per cent in January to 7.8 per cent in February, whereas ours went from 11.2 per cent to 11.3 per cent. How can the Minister explain that?


Marc Lalonde: In a very simple way, Mr. Speaker. The participation rate in this country has increased very significantly, while in the United States it did not increase as fast. As a matter of fact the Hon. Member must know that last year, for instance, the participation rate in Canada increased by 40 per cent more than in the U.S. That obviously has an impact on the statistics to which he refers. What he should bear in mind is the number of jobs created. Again, last month 54,000 new jobs were created in all sectors. There was a significant increase in full-time jobs last month. I find this a very encouraging development.
I indicated in my Budget Speech that I expected the participation rate to increase, the growth of the labour force to be significant this year, and this would mean the unemployment figures would not come up in percentage terms, and they would not come down as fast as I would like or would prefer, but the fact is that we are creating jobs at a very rapid rate. Far from being stalled, the recovery is expected to be strong this year, in the 5 per cent range.
[DOT] (M20)


FUNDING OF YOUTH CAREER ACCESS PROGRAM
James Aloysius McGrath: With regard to the participation rate, how can the Minister explain the fact that the actual rate of unemployment went up 21,000? How can he speak about participation when there are 1,400,000 people unemployed, which is up 100,000 over last year? We have 728,000 long term unemployed, which is up 94,000 from the previous month. We have 536,000 young people unemployed, which represents 18.5 per cent. How can the Minister speak in the House with any credibility about participation? I am trying to explain it to these people.
Can the Minister tell us specifically what he proposes to do about the $150 million in his Budget for the Youth Opportunity Program? How much of that will go into the Career Access Program? Now that the Government has been caught with its hand in the cookie jar, is it the Government's intention to take the $90 million left in the Special Initiatives Program and put it into the youth Career Access Program?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member will understand better if I speak French. Twice I gave him a clear and concise answer but he does not seem to understand what an increase in the participation rate means. I informed him that although we created
54,000	new jobs during the past month, the labour force in Canada was growing at an even faster rate. In other words, the number of people entering the labour market exceeded the number of jobs we created. However, the employment rate rose in all sectors last month, including youth employment, employment in industry, and especially the construction industry. We had an increase of more than five per cent last month.
The Canadian economy is not slowing down and is not in a decline. On the contrary, it is making very sound progress. I pointed out that in 1984, the growth rate of our economy will be around 5 per cent, which is very high. During the month of February, the number of new jobs created rose considerably. In fact, since the recession, we have created about 424,000 new jobs in Canada. This is an impressive record. Perhaps I should point out, in answer to the specific question asked by the Hon. Member, that the Minister of Manpower and Immigration will be discussing with his colleagues, especially the Minister responsible for Youth and the Secretary of State, how these new funds are to be used. As soon as the Minister has finished his consultations, he will be able to give further details.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a short supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has had two supplementary questions. The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair attempts to apportion time fairly between Hon. Members, and it is difficult. The Hon. Member had a lead off question and two supplementaries. All right, I will give a supplementary to the Hon. Member for St. John's East, but that will have to be recognized in the time of other Hon. Members from his side.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I will decline.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands.


CORRELATION BETWEEN UNEMPLOYMENT AND HUMAN SUFFERING
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, there was a statement in yesterday's press which could bring the jobless situation into sharp focus, even for the Minister of Finance. It said this:
Canadians are paying a frightful price in ill health and early death for today's heavy unemployment-
Yesterday there was a study released in the United States showing the very definite relationship between high unemployment and the increase in cardiac arrests, homicides, suicides, early deaths, and infant mortality. The author of that study said the same results as in the United States could appear in Canada.
March 9, 1984

Can the Minister of Finance tell us whether any studies have been done in Canada which show the correlation between high unemployment and the human suffering which that is inflicting on Canadians?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any study made in Canada on this particular subject. 1 have heard a number of speeches and press reports, but I have not personally seen any scientific studies that may have been made recently on the subject.


REGIONAL UNEMPLOYMENT RATES-EFFECT ON PEOPLE
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, that is an incredible admission by the Minister of Finance and by the Government. If he would pay attention to what is going on in the rest of the world, he would find that the study in the United States indicated that the stress and shock of being without a job strongly influence psychiatric disorders and aggression, and this is reflected in the home and in crime.
There are eight regions in this country where the average rate of unemployment is over 20 per cent. That is what the figures which were released today show, over 20 per cent. Why has his Government not even taken the trouble to find out what the toll of human suffering and tragedy is in these regions across the country where unemployment is over 20 per cent?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, what is incredible is the inability of the Hon. Member to hear or understand what I answered to her question. I said that I was not aware of a scientific study being carried out in Canada on this particular subject. She asked me whether I was aware of such studies being made, and I said that there have been many speeches and statements made on this subject but I am not aware of any scientific study that has been made on it. It is for a very good reason. It is a subject on which it is extremely difficult to be scientific. These are, at best, assumptions and analyses made by individuals.
Frankly, I do not need all the sermonizing by the Hon. Member, or to be shown any great press headline, to make me realize that unemployment is indeed a tragedy and has a very serious impact on the individual lives and families of those concerned, in all social environments. I do not need any great sermon from the hon. lady in that regard.
I have a large number of constituents who are unemployed. I personally know a number of Canadians who have suffered from unemployment and who have had a very difficult time over the past many months. I share the concern of Members of the House in that regard. We have been doing everything we can on this side to help those people who are unemployed.
We have tried to stimulate growth in the economy and we have maintained the social safety net, contrary to what the
Oral Questions
Hon. Member for St. John's East would like us to do, that is, to carry on an attack on the old, on women and family allowances, while there are so many people who are unemployed. We have rejected the approach of the Tories to cut back on social security and the social safety net in this country.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Fie has just stated that the Government is doing everything it can to assist the unemployed of Canada. Just a few weeks ago the Minister brought in a Budget and said that this was a stay-the-course Budget because there was no need for a major new initiative or no need for a major new change in government policy when the recovery was well in place and the unemployment situation was in hand.
The Minister of Finance knows full well that for the past three months, both in terms of the percentage rate and absolute numbers, the number of unemployed has increased. We see it again today. What is his line today to the 1.476 million Canadians who are unemployed? By all indications we will see that figure increase next month and see the percentage of unemployed increase as well. There is a definite trend-a very slight trend-but what is his response to that?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to respond that the Hon. Member must look at the number of measures that have been introduced in the last Budget and that will continue to have a very significant impact and effect this year.
With regard to youth unemployment, the Hon. Member will recall that the Speech from the Throne announced a $1.1 billion special youth employment fund, to which I have added $150 million, for a total of $1.3 billion allocated to the problem of youth unemployment. He also knows that we will be spending over $1 billion this year on special capital recovery projects. The Government's expenditures on capital projects will increase by 25 per cent this year at the federal level in order to help create jobs and help the construction sector.
I would submit that, as well as a recovery in the area of housing, the federal Government's expenditures on capital projects have been a factor in providing a 5.4 per cent increase in construction employment last month. I have also indicated that there would be several hundreds of millions of dollars, as a matter of fact certainly over a billion dollars worth of tax incentives that will generate activity in the private sector.
Again, I have to tell my friend that last month 54,000 new jobs were created, and around 424,000 jobs have been created since November, 1982. I am confident that in the course of 1984 we will succeed in creating jobs at this rate over the year and that we will a see a decline of unemployment across the country during the course of 1984.

March 9, 1984
Oral Questions


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has just indicated one more time that the Government has provided tax incentives, tax initiatives, to create jobs in the private sector. The repeated comment is that the public sector in not going to be creating the jobs and that we are looking to the corporate sector to do that job on our behalf. The Minister of Finance has now given the corporate sector $3 billion in the last two Budgets in tax breaks, presumably to invest in Canada and then to create economic development which would result in jobs. It is perfectly clear that what the Minister of Finance says is going to happen and what does happen are two different things.
In spite of the tax breaks to the corporations, we have seen that investment in Canada fell last year by 12.2 per cent, and that investment by Canadian corporations abroad went from $200 million in 1982 to over $2.5 billion in 1983. In other words, the profits of those tax breaks that are being accepted by the corporations are not being invested in Canada, but are being invested abroad in some foreign country.


REQUEST THAT TAX BREAKS BE TIED TO JOB CREATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Finance. Is it not time for the Minister of Finance, if he is going to continue giving tax breaks, in a sense, grants from Canadian taxpayers to the corporations, to tie them in such a way as to ensure that the corporations receiving them create jobs in Canada, and not abroad?


Mr. Speaker:: I am concerned about the nature of questions which involve a very prolonged debate. The questions are long, and the answers are long. It makes it difficult for other Hon. Members to have their share of participation in Question Period.


Marc Lalonde: I will try to be short, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Crosbie:: That will be a job.


Marc Lalonde: To answer the Hon. Member, I have to draw to his attention the measures that were announced in the Budget debate of last year, to which I have no doubt he refers in terms of tax incentives. The Hon. Member will know, for instance, tax incentives were provided for research and development, which were quite significant in the last Budget, and which make Canada the country which has probably the most generous regime in the world for investment in the area of research and development, so important to creating jobs here. Those incentives are available only if you invest in research and development in Canada. It is the same thing with the possibility of the tax credits given for investment. They are related to investment that is taking place in Canada, not investment abroad.
I would submit to my hon. friend that if he makes a careful reading of the measures that were announced in the April Budget he will find that these were not measures that are
giving tax breaks for investment abroad, they are relating, most of them, to a specific activity having to take place in Canada, creating jobs in Canada, and making the Canadian economy more competitive. When we saw, for instance, the large surplus that we had last year vis-a-vis the rest of the world-


Mr. McCuish:: Order.


Marc Lalonde: -obviously this must come from good measures, that is, measures that have helped Canadians compete in selling abroad.


Mr. Speaker:: A second supplementary for the Hon. Member. Could the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap keep in mind that a full-scale budget debate can hardly take place in Question Period?


CALL FOR MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I want to call for something that is different and something we have not called for before. I believe the Minister of Finance would have to admit in spite of what he says today that on the horizon there are real storm clouds.


Mr. Evans:: Question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I am trying to ask the question in some intelligent sort of manner, so give me an opportunity.


An Hon. Member:: Try hard.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The question, Mr. Speaker, is this. Considering that interest rates are obviously on the upward migration, that unemployment is rising, that investor competence is going down, and consumer confidence is going down-


Mr. Speaker:: In fairness to the Hon. Member, this is hardly a question for question and answer. If we transform this into a series of mini-debates, and one can see this procedure is becoming more than mini-debates, it makes it difficult for other Hon. Members to participate. The questions are long and involved, and so are the answers. Can the Hon. Member ask his question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will the Minister of Finance, considering the information that has become available in the last two days, call a meeting of First Ministers to address what has to be the number one problem facing this country, that is, the problem of high and increasing unemployment?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.

March 9, 1984


FINANCE
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I might remind him that in November, 1982, he was quoted in the Toronto Star as suggesting that the baby bonus payments be eliminated for wealthier people who do not need them. I suggest the Minister should not be such a hypocrite when he makes comments in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stevens:: Old Scrooge.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Liberal policy conference turned that suggestion down a few days later, and repudiated the Minister.
The Minister has made some alarming statements in the last few days that he is not worried about the level of the Canadian dollar and there is no connection between interest rates and the Canadian dollar. My question is an important one. Would the Minister tell the House whether the Government and the Bank of Canada prefer a Canadian dollar lower in value to higher interest rates, or do they prefer higher interest rates to the devaluing Canadian dollar? Which policy are they going to pursue now?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member could tell us first of all who has repudiated him. One thing is clear on the Liberal side. Our national party has taken a clear stand in that regard, and it has been a consistent stand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: That stand is very different from the stand taken by the Conservatives. Mind you, they have not taken a formal stand on anything. But I have to remind the Hon. Member of the famous survey carried out by the Conservative Party among its delegates at one of those important conferences they had, because they do not dare have resolutions on anything. The survey was made public. In that survey of delegates it was quite clear that the Conservatives' main line of attack was against social programs.


Gerry St. Germain: Shame.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Did you hear Donald Johnston last night?


Robert Lorne McCuish: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: And that Conservative delegates and Conservative supporters were all trying to reduce the social security-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: With all due regard to the Minister of Finance, the Chair has the same difficulty as was indicated previously.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is a convincing argument for retroactive birth control.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Might I remind the Minister that the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development said yesterday that the principle of universality should be reviewed? That is a statement from a member of the same Government to which the Minister of Finance belongs.
Let me put my question again. It is an important issue. The Canadian dollar is declining in value. It is down below 79 cents compared to the American dollar. Interest rates are rising, and mortgage interest rates have gone up half a point. Is the Government's policy now that it prefers the Canadian dollar to decline in value rather than having interest rates rise? Is the Government going to adopt a policy of allowing the Canadian dollar to devalue wherever the market sends it, rather than have any increase in interest rates in Canada that might counteract the lower Canadian dollar which will stimulate inflation again? Which is your policy? Nothing could be more important.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member should first check the statements before making allegations like the one he made about social programs. He should check exactly what has been said, particularly by my colleague to whom he referred. He might learn a few things. As a matter of fact he might learn a little consistency in terms of the Conservative Party, as to where it should stand-means test one week, universality the next week.


James Aloysius McGrath: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: It will be interesting to see where the Conservatives are going on this very important issue.


Gerry St. Germain: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: I see the Conservatives are all very nervous when we touch the question of social security.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a supplementary question for the same Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect, the Hon. Member has had a supplementary question.

March 9, 1984
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of Mr. William French Smith, Attorney General of the United States of America; Mr. James C. Miller, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, and other distinguished members of the party of American visitors.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, who would be Prime Minister, released the day before yesterday a glossy brochure reporting on a $650,000 government conference called "Canada Tomorrow". In the covering foreword there is not one mention of employment creation or technological opportunity, but the Minister, beside his glossy picture, merely points out:
The only certainty upon which a consensus was clear is that technological change is coming-
Would the Minister of Finance confirm that the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development has not invested any money in the West Kootenay region of British Columbia under the Special Recovery Capital Projects, where unemployment is currently at 24 per cent, with over 12,000 people out of work, and that in the Kamloops region, with over
10,000	people out of work, the only capital recovery project there will produce 100 jobs? Will the Minister confirm these factors?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, first of all the Hon. Member should take the trouble and the time and make the effort to read more than the introduction to the document to which he referred. If he can muster all his courage and strength and go beyond the first page, he might find out that this very useful and important document treats extensively the subjects which he said were absent from the first page he managed to read in the last few days. I will give him another couple of weeks, and maybe he will have finished reading the document and can come back to it.
As far as his question is concerned, I want to be quite clear that the Hon. Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development has mentioned a number of important Special Recovery Capital Projects taking place in British Columbia. These are capital investment projects of a significant or large nature. It is obvious that they are not taking place in every constituency in the country, or even in every specific area of the country. What is important is that they have an impact and effect upon construction all across the country in terms of
supplies, in terms of secondary effect, and in terms of job creation.
Second, the Hon. Member will remember what the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated in the House quite clearly, giving all the detailed figures, that the investment in direct job creation in British Columbia corresponds practically exactly to the percentage level of unemployment in that particular province. This is in spite of the fact that we do not have a single Member of Parliament on this side of the House from British Columbia. However, we care for the people of British Columbia, and we care for the unemployed in that province.


Thomas Edward Siddon: In regard to the document which I have read, it spreads doom and gloom about technology in the future and offers not a single recommendation. So much for $650,000.


PERMANENT EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister of Finance agree with the Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development, who would be Prime Minister but is not here today, when he said to the Macdonald Commission:
The idea of a steady full-time job for everyone who wants to work perhaps is no longer a sensible and realistic goal.
Is that why, under the Special Recovery Capital Projects Program even the Library of Parliament predicts that no more than 20,000 jobs will be created by this massive expenditure of government money on pavement and concrete?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at British Columbia, for instance, he will find that a very substantial federal investment was made in Ridley Island, and also a very significant investment in Vancouver itself, in B.C. Place. I hope he will also remember that British Columbia is the province which will have, of all the provinces in Canada, the largest investment resulting from important Crow rate changes passed by the House during the course of last year, in spite of the opposition of Conservative members from British Columbia who voted against this measure that will benefit British Columbia more than any other province in the country, to the tune of several billions of dollars.


Mr. Huntington:: Nonsense; absolute nonsense.


Marc Lalonde: This is the attitude of the Conservative Party toward British Columbia.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously we are not in question and answer; we are in debate where highly controversial statements are made and Hon. Members seem to feel they have the right to extended supplementary questions. This is a difficult position for the Chair. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.
March 9, 1984


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, my question will be short, and perhaps I will set an example. It is directed to the Minister of National Defence who is aware of a case of sexual harassment in his own Department, indeed which happened in his own riding. The case to which I refer is that of Bonnie Robichaud who complained of sexual harassment in 1979, and whose complaint was upheld by the Human Rights Commission in February, 1983.
How can the Minister justify appealing this ruling to the Federal Court? How can he morally defend proceeding with this appeal, not only in light of the ruling of the Human Rights Commission but also in light of the Government's stated policies which discourage sexual harassment in the Public Service and provide for disciplinary action when such harassment is proven to have taken place?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am very sensitive to that particular issue for the reasons the hon. gentleman has identified. As well, I am sensitive to it because indeed there has been an increase in the number of women who have joined the Canadian forces. Of course there are substantial numbers of women within the civilian complement of Canadian National Defence, so doubly I am concerned about having a very good record in that area.
However, there are a number of issues which have been raised that I felt, having reviewed the appeal which was launched prior to my assuming this responsibility, still needed to be dealt with by a court of appeal. That is why the process has been undertaken and will be proceeding.


REQUEST THAT APPEAL BE WITHDRAWN
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. He is aware that no sanctions have been taken against the man involved in this case. He is still on the job, despite the fact that Treasury Board guidelines indicate that management also has a continuing responsibility to stop any harassment that occurs in the work place whether or not there has been a complaint.
The Minister cannot have it both ways. Either the Government is committed to fighting sexual harassment, or it is not. Will he live up to the Government's stated objectives and withdraw this appeal in the Robichaud case?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to withdraw the appeal. As I indicated to the Hon. Member, I have reviewed the matter very seriously because of its sensitiveness. Indeed I take my responsibilities very, very seriously. Under the circumstances I feel there are still some issues that have to be dealt with.
Until the appeal is disposed of I am not in a position to address the question of sanctions.
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


REGIONS WITH HIGH UNEMPLOYMENT RATES
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. There are some eight economic regions in the country which are now running at well in excess of 20 per cent unemployment. If the criterion is whether or not they are represented by Liberal or Conservative members, I would point to Cape Breton, one of the hardest pressed areas in Canada, and the fact that it is represented to a large measure by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Can the Minister of Finance give some hope to these people that he is considering, with his colleagues, special programs which can be put into place in these particular economic areas where unemployment ranges from 22 per cent to 24 per cent, and even worse with respect to youth unemployment and women who are having enormous difficulty entering the labour force and re-entering it? Re-entry seems to be almost impossible. Is there some special initiative or some special attention being given to these specific eight economic regions?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, indeed the answer is yes. I invite my hon. friend to look at the various programs that are available and are in operation at the present time, particularly those under the authority of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. As well, there are the agreements which were provided for by the Minister of State for Economic Development.
We are in the process of negotiating economic regional development agreements with a number of provinces, including the Province of Nova Scotia. These agreements will provide for significant amounts of money for regions which are suffering from high levels of unemployment. The programs under the authority of my colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, also provide for special incentives which are related to the levels of unemployment in various regions of the country so as to attract industrial investment in those areas in which there is high unemployment.
As to the other measures which have been taken by the Government in order to help the economy of Nova Scotia, I must remind the Hon. Member that, particularly under the offshore agreement we have with the Province of Nova Scotia, we have been able to sustain and encourage the development of an industry related to offshore development, and we have also provided for money to be available to the Government of Nova Scotia in order to ensure the appropriate infrastructure development in that province. I leave aside all the amounts of money that have been spent by the Government, whether in regard to Devco or to other activities in Nova Scotia.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious then that government Members did not sit down this morning and say:

March 9, 1984
Oral Questions
"We have a serious problem and we should address that serious problem".


OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENT
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has cited the offshore program. I wonder if I might ask him whether or not he and his colleagues have taken any steps to reduce the drain on offshore investment money from the East Coast of Canada. We lose over 94 per cent of the billions of dollars which are going into that development. What has he done to turn that investment around and make it stay in industrial Cape Breton, for example, where it might create the new jobs which are required particularly in these economic regions? The Minister laughs.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked his supplementary question. Could the Minister please answer the question?


J. Michael Forrestall: If the Minister laughs in the face of a Cape Bretoner once more, he will be looking for another job.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Hon. Member wonders whether or not we sat down this morning to do something exceptional. No, we did not sit down this morning to do something exceptional because we have been at work on the problems of unemployment for a heck of a long time. We have been taking quite effective steps to deal with these problems, particularly in the Hon. Member's own province.
The Hon. Member is raising the issue of offshore development. I must remind him of the agreement with his province concerning the creation of ocean industries and the fact that we have been taking such steps. These steps have been taken in spite of the opposition of the Conservative Party concerning support for offshore development, in spite of the opposition of the Conservative Party to the measures taken under the National Energy Program to develop offshore, in spite of the opposition of the Conservative Party to the support for Canadian industrial development in those particular areas, and in spite of the attitude of members of the Conservative Party who would favour multinational corporations over Canadian corporations in that regard. We have-


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the Hon. Minister has answered the question.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of State (External Relations). There has been some very alarming news about an attack by the Turkish navy against a Greek vessel or vessels in
the Aegean Sea. Could the Minister give the House some additional information that would clarify for the Canadian public the tragic situation in that part of the world and would also reassure the many Canadians of Greek origin who were very alarmed by the news this morning?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has asked a very general question, and I would invite the Hon. Minister to answer fairly briefly, if possible.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister for External Relations):: 1
like that "if possible", Mr. Speaker. I am aware of the interest of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis in matters pertaining to the Middle East in general, and to Greek issues in particular. This morning I tried to get some information from the Minister on the events to which the Hon. Member is referring. Unfortunately, the Minister did not have much first-hand information. However, he did say that the hypothesis that it may have been just an accident, without any material damage, was quite plausible. I shall continue my enquiries and I hope I will be able to give the Hon. Member some reassuring news, probably on Monday.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question would be directed to the Minister of Finance if I could get his attention. From January to February, Prince Edward Island lost 1,000 jobs. February was the third month in a row in which the unemployment rate in Prince Edward Island jumped sharply, creating an over-all increase of 2.1 per cent in three months. Would the Minister explain to the people of Prince Edward Island how such a dire situation constitutes the recovery about which he boasts?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the specific situation of Prince Edward Island in particular. I want to remind him of the investments made by the Government in Prince Edward Island and in his own riding by the Department of Veterans Affairs, which will create hundreds of permanent, well paid jobs in his own riding.
I would also like to remind the Hon. Member that, out of all of the provinces in Canada, the province that receives the greatest support from the federal Government per capita is Prince Edward Island. The support through the regional development grants and programs represents $1,200 per capita in Prince Edward Island. This is much more than the support that has been given to any other particular area or province in the country, by hundreds and hundreds of dollars. The concern and interest that the Government of Canada has taken in the welfare of the people of Prince Edward Island should, I think,
March 9, 1984

be quite evident to the Hon. Member, even in spite of his partisan approach to this particular problem.


MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. When a province like Prince Edward Island loses hundreds of jobs in three months despite all of the ad hoc programs to which the Minister of Finance has made reference, and the Minister describes that as recovery, could the Minister stand today and describe to the House, for the sake of the people of Prince Edward Island and the people of Canada as a whole, what recession means in his mind, if that constitutes recovery?
Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, again I invite my hon. friend to examine the level of support for the economy of Prince Edward Island that has been undertaken by the Government. This level of support has been consistent over the years, and we intend to continue that kind of support.
If my hon. friend would bother to check the exact figures he would find, as a matter of fact, that the Prince Edward Island economy has fared relatively better than many other regional economies during the recession, and that the level of unemployment in Prince Edward Island, although high, is still lower than that which exists in some other provinces in the country. I invite my friend to consider this situation by comparing his province with other provinces which are also entitled to support from the federal Government in order to meet their difficulties.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Hon. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Last year I urged the Minister's predecessor to table a Bill putting an end to the activities of tax discounters, those social vultures who prey upon the poor, the unemployed, and particularly poor women, by charging annual interest rates which are effectively well over 200 per cent in many cases. In view of the Minister's admission earlier this week that there is something wrong with a system which permits this kind of activity to take place, and in view of the lengthy delays taken by the tax Department when issuing refunds, what action is the Minister prepared to take now to stop this legalized theft, particularly of child tax credits and other tax refunds?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I abhor the practice that is under way. I can assure the Hon. Member that I have taken steps. I am having discussions with the Minister of National
Oral Questions
Health and Welfare who is as disturbed as I am, as well as with the Minister of National Revenue.
Unfortunately, it is too late to do much this year, but I can assure the Hon. Member that a new system will be in place by the next taxation year. I congratulate those credit unions that have taken up our suggestion that they occupy that territory. They have begun to do so very well, particularly in the Hamilton area.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister should have moved on this question a long time ago.


MONEY MART-FEES CHARGED FOR CASHING GOVERNMENT CHEQUES
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to the activities of another group of commercial parasites, the Money Mart franchises. In view of the extortionate fees charged by these outfits to cash government cheques-fees which banks are prohibited from charging by law-will the Minister support speedy changes to the Bank Act to, in effect, prohibit the Money Mart chain from charging fees for cashing federally issued cheques? I would point out that the primary clientele of Money Mart are low income people.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, as usual the Hon. Member has some very simplistic solutions to practices which I abhor as well. I suggest to him that if we were to take up his suggestions there is always the tendency they would drive all those people underground where they would charge even higher fees. There must be a balanced and realistic approach to the problem. I suggest that he offer some realistic solutions, not the kind of band-aid solutions he is putting forward in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: One short question for the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington).


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, in reply to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Richmond-South Delta, the Minister of Finance said that the Government, and he in particular, cared about the people in British Columbia. In that statement is he refuting absolutely the statement made yesterday in Vancouver by his colleague, the Minister of the Environment? When he was asked if the federal Government would be prepared to co-operate with assistance for reforestation, the Minister of the Environment replied that the Government would not do so because the Province of British Columbia does not vote Liberal and does not lobby properly.
Does the Minister of Finance refute absolutely the example of the Minister of the Environment, who said that Quebec
1942

March 9, 1984
Petitions
manufacturers knew how to get money out of the Liberal Government and the Province of British Columbia did not?


Mr. Nielsen:: Dance around that one.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the question of the Hon. Member is so-


Erik Nielsen: Factual.


Marc Lalonde: -obviously wrong that it does not deserve much of an answer. The Minister of the Environment has declared that the federal Government is not spending funds for reforestation at the present time in British Columbia because-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Because they do not vote Liberal.


Marc Lalonde: -we have been unable to get an agreement with British Columbia on reforestation. That is his statement. That is what he actually said.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They don't know how to lobby is what he said.


Marc Lalonde: This has been the situation because of the attitude of the provincial Government which controls all Crown land in British Columbia and under whose authority the reforestation program would have to take place.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: They don't vote Liberal is what he says.


Marc Lalonde: We have had agreements with Manitoba and with other provinces regarding reforestation. The Government of Canada is ready to enter into an agreement also with the Government of British Columbia.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Only if they vote Liberal.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have a short point of order arising out of the response of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) to questions relating to British Columbia. I am sure he would not want inadvertently to mislead the House but he did imply that the money arising out of the Crow benefit would be spent in Canada. I think that if he checks he will find that $600 million of that-


Mr. Speaker:: This is argument, not a point of order. This is debate.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) on Thursday, March 8, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I really felt neglected today in the Question Period. I could not ask a question of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier) because he was not here. The former Minister of Sport was not here, and the other former Minister from Halifax who is now running for-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I call to the attention of the Hon. Member that even if the parties named had been here the length of the questions and the length of the answers would have precluded him from having the opportunity in any case.


Steve Eugene Paproski: They are going to lose $34 million and none of the Ministers is around.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a petition to present to the House signed by residents of the Province of Ontario, drawing the attention of the House to the serious problem of drinking and driving. They urge passage of amendments to the Criminal Code which will increase the penalties of those found guilty of drinking and driving.
This is the third such petition that I have presented, Mr. Speaker.
 * *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 366, 584, 615 and 643.


Mr. St. Germain: Did the Department of Transport incur any cost in reactivating the Boundary Bay Airport in Delta, B.C., and, if so, what was the cost of the (a) runway resurfacing (b) construction of a control tower (c) other servicing or provision of facilities at the airport?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada costs in the reactivation of Boundary Bay Airport:
March 9, 1984

(a)	Runway resurfacing (actual)	$	750,000(b)	Construct Control Tower (estimate)	$1,800,000(c)	Other services and facilities	$4,100,000
Breakdown for "C"
Field Lighting	$	885,000Access Roads	$	820,000Water Supply	$	500,000Misc. site development (demolition, grading, etc.)	$	450,000Site Drainage Improvements	$	435,000Power Supply	S	320,000Fencing	$	220,000Flightway Obstruction Removal and markings	$	210,000Temporary Structure and services for Airport	Operations	$	210,000Miscellaneous Contingencies	$	50,000


Mr. Howie: How many persons are currently employed as Citizenship Court Judges and what is the salary range for such judges?


Hon. Serge Joyal (Secretary of State):: Title	Salary Range	NumberPer Diem Judge	$39,830 - 46,850	1Judges	39,830 - 46,850	28Regional Co-ordinators	46,740 - 54,970	3National Co-ordinator	52,860 - 62,210	1Total	33


Mr. Howie: Did the Royal Canadian Mint operate at a profit in either of the last two fiscal years and, if so, in each case, what was the excess of revenue over expenditures?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: am informed by the Royal Canadian Mint as follows: Yes. 1981 calendar year-$10,699,793. 1982 calendar year- $14,856,000.


Mr. Stewart: Is there a Machinery Program and, if so, in the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 what amount was expended under the program (b) 1983-84 what amount was budgeted for the program?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Yes. The Machinery Program was introduced in 1968 pursuant to the provisions of the Customs Tariff Act. (a) $298,169,863 in the form of duty remission, (b) There is no amount budgeted for remission of duty under this program. The amount of duty remitted varies depending upon the volume and value of goods imported under those tariff items subject to the provisions of the Machinery Program.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Security Intelligence Service


Mr. Speaker:: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Kaplan that Bill C-9, an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to review a little of what I said on February 20. Bill C-9 is an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, to enact an Act respecting enforcement in relation to certain security and related offences and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof or in relation thereto.
In my opening remarks I began to discuss the notion of what security means in current English. 1 believe there has been a change in the meaning of the word in our part of the world.
During the break we had last week I visited a number of high schools in Saskatoon and spoke to student bodies. I was surprised to find among them a great concern about this Bill. In fact, I received more questions about the security Bill than about any other area of activity in the House of Commons. This was an eye opener to me because I did not realize young people had this concern.
In my opening remarks on the Bill I spoke about the notion of security. Words indicate what is happening in society so the change in the meaning of a word indicate a change in mentality. When I was younger I believed that the word "security" referred to a state of well-being. You were secure when you were in your home; you were well looked after, you were warm, your parents were with you and there was a state of security. In today's world I believe there is an almost completely different understanding of the word, and that is why I think it is important to define what we mean by the word "security" in the Bill.
Today I think security almost means looking at someone as an enemy. To be secure you have to be sure that you can check everybody out. To be secure you have to sort of work against everybody who might be trying to damage your own security. Probably the best example of how the meaning of the word has

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
changed is with the systems at airports. People now take it for granted that they go through security. They are actually going through a machine which is there because the airline company or society has indicated that everyone in the airport is possibly suspected of subversion. Interestingly enough, no one stands up and protests that what is taking place is an indication to every person that they are actually a security risk and cannot be trusted. 1 feel that change in mentality is something which is very significant in terms of this Bill which is before us.
I have had the experience of living in a part of the world in which there was a radical change in the notion of security. In Latin America in the 1960s the policy which was adopted by five of the major countries there is what is known as the "doctrine of national security". That doctrine began in Brazil in 1964 when the military overthrew the democratically elected Government of Goulart and then put into effect the military regime which has lasted down to the present time, although the severity of that particular regime has tapered off in the last number of years.
Following that takeover there were the coups which took place in Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Bolivia. Each of them had basically the same mentality and philosophy, which was always based on the idea of national security. National security was understood in the kind of philosophy that one had to be against the enemy and the enemy was, for simplistic purposes, communism. Therefore, the military took over and took away the rights of people. There was no problem at all. There was no discrimination whatsoever. Everyone in a sense became the enemy. Just as Pogo said in the comic strip: "We looked for the enemy and the enemy was us". And that was the factual situation in those countries.
I am not talking about what used to be called "the banana republics". I am talking about countries with high levels of historical democratic process such as Argentina and Chile which had 132 years of democratic governments prior to these takeovers. The reason they were finally taken over was the idea that in those countries there were subversives, communists, people who were going to take over the government, the government having already been taken over by the military. There was this idea that one had to protect oneself against the subversive.
When I learned that the Government was going to introduce a Bill which was based on the idea of having a Security Intelligence Service, I could not believe it. I just could not believe that those kinds of words could be used in Canada. I would like the Government to look seriously at what is happening, because if there is any possibility at all of the philosophy which I have been outlining, under which I have lived and which I have seen operate, taking place right now, I say to government stop, and stop now. Once this kind of operation is in place with its secrecy, there is no way to find out what is happening; and if you happen to be one of the "subversives", there is no way of telling whether your telephone is tapped or your mail is being opened. I have lived through all that. Even
today I have great difficulty feeling really secure that my phone is not being tapped or that my mail is not being opened. That is because I lived for six years where that was a reality in part of the world which not very long before had been a democratic country.
What happened in the situation where everyone became a subversive, and where those countries had to set up a security service not unlike what we have here? It had a body which was the directorship and it had under it the agents. The agents had absolute and total power to do whatever they wanted. Whom did they go after? They went after anyone who questioned what was going on in the government. Who were they? They were the university community.
In the area I lived in Brazil in the 1960s, near the place where I lived, there was a city which had a state university, the city of Maceio. During the period of January, 1969 every single university professor was arrested or detained. Why were they arrested or detained? Because they were subversives? No, because they "might" be subversives. They were questioned and put through police procedures and looked upon as being spies and enemies of the state.
I lived in another reality in which there were a great number of so-called "subversives", people one could not trust. It was the church. People who were actively involved in church responsibilities became the subversives. Many of my friends and colleagues and many of the people I worked with became the subversives. They were arrested and imprisoned and sometimes they were killed. This was all done under the notion of security of the state. Other subversives were the labour unions. Anyone at all who had any influence over the workers, the leaders of the organizations of the workers, became the subversives, the enemies of the state, so they likewise went through the same procedure.
Young people were also involved. They became the enemy because they were asking why this was going on. They asked how it was possible that a government could set up a system which treats its people as though they were all enemies of the state. But it did, and that situation still exists, Mr. Speaker. It exists in several countries yet.
I am happy to say, after having been to Brazil and talked to the human rights people, that much of the early violence against civilians which was carried out by the security services in the name of guarding security has disappeared. However, in Uruguay it still exists. In Chile it is very real. There is no break at all I can see in the position there. Thanks be to goodness, in Argentina I believe there has been a change and that a democratic election has brought back to Argentina- again, a country with a long tradition of working and democratic processes-a system in which it is going back and rechecking that period of its history, the period of violence carried out against its own citizens in the name of justice.
What this Bill is attempting to deal with is the difficult distinction between legitimate dissent and subversion. I admit there are times when that must be a very difficult thing to decide. However, I am very much afraid of the fact that if that is done through a secret system in which the citizens of the
March 9, 1984

country cannot get a responsible answer, it will become very dangerous for the citizens of the country.
What would be considered legitimate dissent? Could it happen down the road that there will be a militant group which will get into government and take over this civilian service? I suspect that that is a real possibility in our country when I observe the ease with which some people, including people in this House, throw around the word "communist" or the word "subversive", and I have heard them use those words. Could it just be down the road that suddenly the same thing will happen and the same kind of people who suffered in Latin America will suffer under this super security mentality, this super necessity to get intelligence and information out of anyone no matter how, whether by using the telephone, the post, or by using prison, intimidation, torture or even death? Is it possible that the beginnings of that kind of mentality in a system is already among us? I speak with emotion about it naturally, because I have lived and suffered under that system.
I ask the Government, and I ask it seriously, to reconsider what it is doing. This notion of setting up a Security Intelligence Service which is not part of the RCMP, which is not something we can question, we can see, talk to and check on to find out what is going on, is a very dangerous precedent in Canadian life.
How did the situation happen in Latin America where there were people who knew about democracy, who had constitutions and well formed governments? I lived through it and I watched it take place. I would like to introduce into the debate today some ideas which have been presented by the Interchurch committee on Human Rights in Latin America. They are ideas which have been put forward by some of the most outstanding theologians, philosophers and historians of Latin America itself, including Jose Comblin, a theologian who is well known throughout all of Latin America and who has written extensively on the church and the national security state in Latin America.
It is claimed that the ideology of the national security state had two main sources. I believe it is true because I have seen it. One might be called indigenous in that it goes back to the roots of Spanish and Italian fascism and those Catholic organizations on the far right involved in all of that. The other can be traced to a much more recent event, the training provided for military and security forces in the U.S. and in the School of the Americas in Panama founded by the U.S., and in the Supreme War College of Brazil. I have spoken to graduates of both places and they have told me about what took place there.
That is where this philosophy, this mentality, was brought forward that you had to have this super security over all citizens so that there would be no subversion, which I agree with, but also that legitimate dissent did not exist. There was no way that you could question what was going on because "big brother", the government, said what is going on is good and you should accept that because "Big Brother" said it is good. There was no way to have legitimate dissent. When
Security Intelligence Service
there was any form of dissent at all from the church, the universities or labour unions, they then became the targets.
What happened next was that, because people could see this was oppression in its worst form, throughout Latin America there was a strong movement among many people, including church people, to have people study in the light of the Gospel and other values whether this was right or wrong. What took place was "conscientization". It is a difficult word, it does not really exist in English, but it is a word-concientizacao- which basically means that people, after studying a reality, grow to a new awareness of who they are and what their rights are under the system they live in. They can have legitimate dissent and speak up and find a better way down the road.
Unfortunately my time is running out, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.


Mr. Blaikie:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and perhaps a question. I was glad the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) mentioned the Interchurch Committee on Human Rights in Latin America because I think it is important to see this whole debate about what constitutes subversion as compared to legitimate dissent in the proper theological and historical context. I ask Members who are genuinely interested in this debate to remember that this debate is at the centre of the very beginning of our civilization, to the extent we call ourselves a civilization based on the Judaeo-Christian tradition.
The central event at the beginning of that tradition, the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, was a matter having everything to do with subversion versus dissent. The crucifixion was a Roman punishment, not a Jewish punishment, for enemies of the state. Christ was regarded as an enemy of the state because He called into question the supremacy of Roman law and Roman authority. He said that people owed their obedience more to the Kingdom of God in its justice than to any temporal or earthly authority. People should keep that in mind and perhaps the Hon. Member would want to comment on that.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for putting it into very clear religious terms. We are dealing with the essential value of human life and the essential rights of humans. There are different ways of handling that. There is a way of saying that without becoming a criminal. The example of Christ and the crucifixion can be looked on as my colleague demonstrated. There was no way for legitimate dissent against what was going on. You became a subversive and that meant death. His historic example is one that we see many times in modern day life, and death is the answer. I know people who have been killed because they asked questions. I hope this Government looks at the basics and that it will find a way so that our democratic processes and freedoms will be protected without turning us into a police state.


Mr. Heap:: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the Hon. Member's reference to the School of the Americas and the War College in Brazil. He talked about the teaching carried

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
on there but he has not made any connection between these two colleges and Canada. There is a connection with the word "security" which is no doubt very similar to the word in the Spanish language or the Portuguese language used in those countries. Does the Hon. Member have any information which connects the teaching of those two schools with Canada? Were there personnel exchanges, or any indication that the teaching has come back to Canada from those schools?


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. I cannot say if there has been any information which has come back from those two schools. However, I think it is interesting to know the history of those schools. In 1969 Nelson Rockefeller was asked to make a report on the whole of Latin America before the Alliance for Progress went into effect. After he made his report it was made a condition of the Alliance for Progress program that countries would receive aid if they were against communism. They would have to prove that they were against communism.
The two schools I speak of are where people were trained to find a way to bring about the total destruction of communism. Now, of course I speak about it in simplicity, but the people who became the communists were the people who were asking questions. They may have been communists, but in my experience the majority of the people were the poor, the oppressed and those who wanted a better deal, a change. But when they started asking for a change they became the subversives. The people who brought about the attack against them, and I have spoken to many of them, have told me that they learned how to do it at either one of those two places.


Mr. Flis:: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member whether he does not feel there are enough safeguards in the Bill to protect the Canadian Security Intelligence Service from the kind of abuses he and his Party are afraid of. I draw his attention to the definition of "threats to the security of Canada":
(a)	espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage,
(b)	foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person,
I will not read (c) or (d), but I would like to remind the Hon. Member that the Bill clearly states:
-but does not include lawful advocacy, protest or dissent, unless carried on in conjunction with any of the activities referred to in paragraphs (a) to (d).
Would he not also agree that there is a great deal of security protection built into the Bill under Section 34, which provides for the setting up of a Security Intelligence Review Committee? Section 34 states-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I have referred to this matter before. On second reading we should not be discussing the individual clauses. We are supposed to be discussing the Bill in principle only. Maybe the Member would confine his remarks to the principle of the Bill.


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes. I would like to ask whether the principle of building in such a Security Intelligence Review Committee provides the kind of protection he is looking for, especially when there are representatives of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) on that Committee. Surely the Bill gives adequate protection against the kind of concerns and fears the NDP is expressing.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I would say no. I think my response reflects the idea of all civil libertarian groups I know in Canada, as well as bar associations and other groups.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a final comment. What is being missed as we move from the RCMP to a new civilian security service is the opportunity to have a genuine change in our view of what constitutes subversion. Some of the views which the Member for Saskatoon East expressed about the future are already here. The Government has 800,000 files on Canadians. In 1969 I attended a demonstration at a Liberal fund raising banquet in Winnipeg at which the Prime Minister was speaking in which I protested, a second voyage of the oil tanker Manhattan through the Northwest Passage. I later discovered I was listed as a potential communist because I did not want the Manhattan to go through the Northwest Passage. That is the type of paranoia which has existed in the country at least since 1969-not in the future but since 1969-and which, if we do not change, will lead to the kind of future which the Member for Saskatoon East fears.


Robert Joseph Ogle: Mr. Speaker, I would just say I agree with what the Member said.


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a kind of love-in with the few remaining socialists in Canada.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He said he was President of the YPC.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I would like to tell the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) and the Hon. Member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) that the rights of free speech and dissent are not in the hearts of the NDP alone. It goes back to the axiom that I disagree with everything you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it. I am not quite prepared to go to that length, but Voltaire said that quite some time ago and I do not think he could have been accused of being a socialist. It is true that one must have the right to dissent. I believe all of us on this side of the House certainly believe in that and will sustain it.
This Bill succeeds Bill C-157. It was a feckless, gormless government which produced Bill C-157. At the time of the production of that Bill Canadians were looking for something which would enable us to have a less militant organization, possibly something like the CIA of some years but not of others. We wanted it to be somewhat milder. Instead of that, the Government produced Bill C-157 which would not have
March 9, 1984

given us anything like the CIA. It would have given us something more akin to the KGB. Fortunately the place of sober second thought looked it over and successfully pointed out to the Government that it was a totally inappropriate Bill to be put in front of the Canadian people.
Bill C-9, which is in front of us at the present time, sets up the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. This Bill is somewhat better. It needs a lot of improvement yet and we hope there will be some improvement when it gets into committee. Perhaps it would be useful to the House if I were to discuss this Bill in terms of the organization we have at the present time of which not everyone is aware. It is extraordinarily difficult to get any information on the way the system works at the present time, as everyone knows. I will discuss the organization in those terms first and then review the Bill. This may help us see where we are in danger of going in the future.
The current organization for security and intelligence is amorphous, to say the least. At the present time it does have some component parts which, fortunately, are distributed among several Departments whereby the Ministers can have something to say about what their component is doing. There are three Departments which are quite seriously involved and I think the Solicitor General's Department is first since it controls the RCMP.
As a result of the difficulties in 1970 with the FLQ in Quebec, it was determined there was no crisis management capability in the Government. It was then decided to set up a security section of the RCMP as a result of what happened in those days. At the present time there are sections A, B, D, E, F, H, I, J and L which are operating sections of the security division. I believe these sections are alphabetically designated for functional purposes with certain sections looking after certain problems. One wonders what happened to C, G, and K sections which are missing from their alphabetical list. However, that is a rather specious curiosity.
At that time they decided they should have a civilian in charge of this section of the RCMP. They did not go all the way to choosing a civilian but rather chose Lieutenant General Dare, a very competent and highly qualified military man who had been of considerable assistance during the problems in Quebec at that time. His capabilities had impressed the Government and they made him the head of the security section of the RCMP. I have a great deal of admiration for his capabilities. I do not believe the direction he received was what it should have been.
I will move for the time being from the Solicitor General's Department to the Department of National Defence. There exists the famous section known as the Communications Security Establishment which is located here in Ottawa. It arouses the interest of the media about once a year when someone in the media stumbles over the Communications Security Establishment. We then see a headline such as "Electronic Spy Agency has Doubled in Nine Years". It is difficult to think of anything which has not doubled in nine years, of course. The media immediately interprets it as a great spy agency which is doing something that should not be done. I heard it best
Security Intelligence Service
described as being there to ensure the security of our communications and the insecurity of everyone else's. That may well be the real purpose of the CSE.
It has quite a collection of information for intelligence and other purposes. It does have several sub-parts which are not all that well known. It is useful sometimes in peace-keeping. Under capabilities I would like to mention the electronic surveillance units which they have at the present time. There are very excellent units indeed and the capability of Canadians in electronic surveillance is well known everywhere.
I visited the Sinai desert at the time when Canadian troops were there in a peace-keeping role. As an example of how there can be advantages to this kind of capability, a group had been formed by the United Nations to supervise the green line at that time between the Egyptians primarily and the Israelis. This group which had been established under United Nations supervision had an electronic surveillance capability and possessed some of the most exotic sound detection systems one could imagine. This organization sat on the green line and was able to report not only to the UN or just one side, but to both of the contending sides about what the other side was doing. Everything which they reported was automatically conveyed to both sides. Consequently there was no danger of one side basing its decisions on hearsay information and attacking in a panic situation. Pre-emptive attack is very popular among small countries that get into difficulty and require peace-keeping forces. There was quite some use at that time for surveillance units.
I sometimes disagree with the appropriateness or capability of the RCMP involvement in international espionage when dealing with certain Canadians who occasionally become involved in it. I must confess that the RCMP seems to have a great predilection to turn traitorous Canadians into double agents. As best I can tell, it has a success rate of absolutely zero in this matter. To my knowledge, everyone whom the RCMP has picked off turned out to be too stupid, incapable or had already blown their cover as a double agent.
I would like to refer to a book entitled Men in the Shadows. It mentions that at a certain period of time:
There was a whole new series of successful recruitments in Moscow during the late 1960s and early 1970s. A Canadian corporal acting as chauffeur-assistant to the Canadian Military Attache in Moscow-
As an aside I might note that Canadian military attaches are there to report on the military of the country in which they are stationed. They are not there to open doors for visiting VIPs. They have a duty and are known in the trade usually as bright young officers with good cameras. This one had a chauffeur-assistant who spied for the KGB in the early 1970s. The book goes on to state:
He was apparently caught black-marketing in the exchange of foreign currency and pressured into the role of an agent for which he was rewarded both financially and sexually. He did the usual things, like planting bugs within the embassy and reporting on the weaknesses of other Canadians, and continued to do so after being transferred to Peking. He was discovered by West German Intelligence-

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
Not ours, but by West German Intelligence.
-after being posted to the Canadian military base at Lahr and put under surveillance in August, 1974. He was escorted back to Canada and confessed but also was not prosecuted. He resigned with a pension.
This is why I sometimes have doubts as to the proper direction of our counter-espionage and espionage systems.
In Bill C-157 we found that there was no real accountability fixed anywhere. Bill C-9 would set up a review committee but neither Bill C-9 nor C-157 provides for the right of the review committee to seek Cabinet documents. I am sure the Cabinet will simply not let the review committee see Cabinet documents. It is interesting to note that the Senate committee recommended that the review committee be allowed to see Cabinet documents. With such a highly sensitive area as this, it is difficult to understand how the review committee could possibly function without that ability.
If one researches to see who is in charge of our present organization, it is the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence. While it has that responsibility, it seems rather loath either to use or accept that responsibility. I recall when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stood in the House and pointed out that in many of these cases it is best that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) not know what was going on. This is a thesis which I cannot accept at all.
I remember the first meeting of the Cabinet Committee on Security and Intelligence when we took office in 1979. We talked to the staff and they told us at that time that it was the first meeting of the committee in two years. To my recollection we had five meetings during the nine months in which we were in office. 1 understand that the committee has met twice in the last year but I do not believe it is really evidence of a reformation on any great scale since it has presumably spent some time studying Bill C-157 and Bill C-9. It would have a difficult time doing that without sitting once in a while.
The make-up of the committee is interesting. When the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) was Prime Minister, he chaired the committee, as does the present Prime Minister. I was the Minister of National Defence and in that role I was the Vice-Chairman of the committee. I notice that now it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs and Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who holds that position. This puts External Affairs in a higher position than it was in 1979 as far as this particular committee is concerned.
There are not too many differences in the committee's membership. At that time the Minister of Public Works was on the committee. The present Government has on the committee the Minister of State for Social Development, who is in the other place, as well as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). I am not quite sure why these economic Ministers are on the Committee on Security and Intelligence unless they feel that the economy is in such a terrible condition that the whole country might collapse and they will be needed there. I suppose that is for them to decide.
The present Cabinet committee is larger, as is the case with most everything in the Cabinet of the Prime Minister. There
are ten men on their committee and six men on its alternate list. In our day we had seven men and one woman on the committee. I suggest that we should be concerned about the frequency of this committee's meetings.
If we look in the Bill to see who is in charge of this operation, it can be seen that it is quite clearly put into the hands of the Solicitor General. There is no longer any doubt about who is in charge. The definitions clearly put the responsibility on the Solicitor General, far more than it was under the old system when the Cabinet committee had that responsibility. The strange thing that has existed until today-one can understand, knowing that the Cabinet committee practically never met-is that there is a committee of deputy ministers which deals with security and intelligence. It is a committee that does not like to be known as a mirror committee but prefers to be called an interdepartmental committee of deputy ministers. It deals with security and intelligence and has two subcommittees, one on security and one on intelligence.
I have heard from members of that committee of deputy ministers, although General Dare was the person who chaired it, that they have been meeting once a month for four years and corresponding with the Cabinet committee but not receiving any replies. It eventually adopted a strategy of which I do not approve. When it made recommendations or passed resolutions in the committee, it would refer them to the Cabinet committee. If it did not receive a response it would consider that they had been accepted by the Cabinet. This is a very dangerous option for it to practise and I hope this will not take place in the future. When we see the lines of communication provided for in Bill C-9, the Solicitor General has a deputy minister who can report directly to that committee.
The Director of the service will be a very powerful man indeed. He can report either to the deputy minister or to the Solicitor General. But poor people like the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) can only write to the Solicitor General.


Mr. Blais:: And talk to him, too.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: He will not be able to send a copy to the person who is making decisions, which would appear to be the Director.
In my last couple of minutes I want to mention a few concerns of mine having to do with personnel. First is the transfer of personnel. This Bill refers to what will happen to members of the RCMP who are transferred into the new organization. It does not mention what is going to happen to military personnel. I can say quite frankly I believe there are several hundred military personnel who are involved at the present time in electronic interception. Whether they are going to be converted into civil servants in this organization is not made clear at all. I know we should not be pointing out specific parts of the Bill at this stage of the discussion, but on page 26 of Bill C-9 the RCMP is mentioned very fully. There is no mention made, however, of what will happen to the service personnel.
March 9, 1984

I worry considerably about the make-up of the review committee, which consists of a Chairman plus two to four Privy Councillors. These Privy Councillors cannot be Members of the House of Commons or members of the Senate. This gets one into a very select little group. Everyone is casting around wondering who will be appointed. These appointments will be made by the Governor in Council; therefore, we will end up with the Prime Minister's friends on the committee. I believe this is of great concern to Canadians.
This Government does not have the confidence of the Canadian people. I do not know who will win the election, but I think it would be helpful if an election were held before something like this is put in place. When you consider that the Director has been given the authority for staffing this entire organization, one can see what could happen. All the applicants for porkbarrel treatment would be up at the top of this organization. There is one across the way. If the Hon. Member is certain of his future in the House, he might want to stay here.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What about you?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: There are other Privy Councillors around looking for work, I suppose, but there are not too many of them who have the qualifications. Jack Horner appears to be rattling around looking for work again.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He has a job.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Senator Stollery, I understand, feels that his job is rather confining. He feels his hands are tied on occasion and he is not happy with it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: He is a police counsellor.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: He could be made a Privy Councillor. It takes only a day to make someone a Privy Councillor. I am not at all sure we would want to end up with somebody like that.
Personally I feel that this Bill, unless it is changed dramatically, cannot receive our support. I would like to see an election intervene because frankly the people of Canada worry very much about the track record which this Government has of Governor in Council appointments. People worry very much about having our intelligence and security operation put in the hands of somebody selected by the Privy Council.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of brief questions. I was very pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) say that Bill C-9 is much better than Bill C-157. He agrees that it needs some improvement. Could he tell the House whether, in light of the fact that the Senate committee made so many changes to the Bill, his Party is prepared to support this Bill in principle, keeping in mind there may be the odd amendment which the Government may have to accept. In light of the Hon. Member's comments, since he did seem pretty positive toward the Bill and mentioned it needed some improvement, could he indicate to the House whether this Party would be prepared to support this Bill?
Security Intelligence Service


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, If I might first just apologize to the House, when we rise for lunch I have a plane to catch and I cannot be here for the few minutes that will remain for questions.
In answer to the Hon. Member's question, there has been considerable improvement to the Bill and if it gets improved quite radically in committee, then we would have another look at it. At the present time I would expect we will not be voting for it on second reading. However, the Government has a majority and, as it has demonstrated so often on so many matters-I am thinking particularly of the Crow Bill-the Government finally gets its way no matter how unjust the cause is.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, again what we are seeing is a Party of being against. Surely its members must have some principles for which they stand and could tell the Canadian public in this House.


Mr. Jarvis:: That is baloney.


Jesse Philip Flis: As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is afraid. Rather than asking further questions, I have just a comment to make.
The Hon. Member for Victoria said that he would prefer to have an election prior to the passing of the Bill. Is he concerned that his new Leader has dropped in the polls from 52 per cent to 48 per cent and this is why he is urging upon us an immediate election?


William Herbert Jarvis: I thought the Hon. Member opposite was serious about this Bill.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I thought we were supposed to discuss the Bill. I am worried about a Party that has only 36 per cent of the people in Canada supporting it. The Liberals are glad to have that much support. They are overjoyed to get to 36 per cent. It means just over one-third of the people will vote for them. With that level of support, I do not want personal friends of the Prime Minister being put into very important and lasting jobs, such as those created by this Bill and, as well, being given the opportunity to appoint all of their subordinates. That is of great concern to the general public.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing today with a Bill which, if and when enacted, will set up an entirely new security service and lay down the rules and procedures under which this service would operate. Since Canada became a country and up to now, security matters have been left to the RCMP. Most Canadians seem to be satisfied with that. Most Canadian Government and Ministers of Justice or Solicitors General who were supposedly responsible for the administration of the RCMP seemed to be satisfied with that situation.
A few years ago an RCMP officer acting on his own and in his free time in the City of Montreal was injured while placing a bomb on the premises of a private citizen. Because of what

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
happened he was charged and brought to trial. At his trial he made a number of allegations. He indicated that some RCMP officers had been involved in some highly illegal activities. Members of Parliament who were here will remember that questions were asked of the Solicitors General at that time. I remember the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) and the present Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) indicated by their replies that they knew very little about what the RCMP had been doing.
As a result of the questions asked in Parliament and outside, a royal commission was appointed to look into all the questions surrounding the operations of the RCMP and its security service. This Commission, headed by Mr. Justice McDonald, held hearings across the country and studied the matter from 1977 to 1980. I hope the Hon. Member across the way who has been asking questions will keep in mind when he asks further questions that it was the McDonald Commission, not members of the New Democratic Party or civil libertarians, that found that the RCMP had been involved in kidnapping, in barn burning, in the theft of dynamite, in the theft of membership lists of legitimate political organizations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but it being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, during the few minutes I spoke before the noon adjournment, I was listing some of the findings of the McDonald Commission. It found that members of the RCMP had been involved in a number of highly illegal acts, including kidnapping, barn burning, theft of dynamite, the filing of false income tax returns and theft of the membership lists of a legitimate political Party, the Parti Quebecois. 1 am a federalist, Mr. Speaker. I am completely opposed to the major principle behind separatism espoused by the Parti Quebecois, as I am to the principles behind the Canada West party and other groups like it. However, surely as long as individuals, groups or political Parties wish to bring about changes in which they believe in a democratic way, there is no legitimate reason for the security service to be investigating such groups or individuals or to be stealing membership lists, as was done by the RCMP.
Another finding of the McDonald Commission was that the RCMP had files on 800,000 individual Canadians. That is mind-boggling, Mr. Speaker. Some of us have always suspected that the security service of the RCMP had looked into the activities of people involved in the labour movement, some farm organizations, peace organizations, anti-nuclear campaigns and the anti-Cruise campaign, but none of us would
have suspected that the RCMP had accumulated files on
800,000	Canadians. There has been one political assassination in the whole history of Canada. There has been very little in the way of political violence. I have never been able to understand why the security service should be involved in that kind of surveillance.
Some years ago, bowing to pressure of public opinion, Parliament passed an Access to Information Act. Some Canadians were interested in finding out whether the RCMP had files on them and, if so, what those files contained. A number of people, myself included, applied, in the ways which were prescribed under the provisions of that Act, for permission to see our files. This is the kind of response we got from the RCMP, and we got similar responses from the Solicitor General:
In regards to your request concerning our Security Service Records,. . . please be advised that the Governor-in-Council has designated our Security Service Records, described in the Index of Personal Information Banks, as exempt from access under Section 18 of the Privacy Act. We cannot comply with your request nor can we confirm whether or not such information exists concerning you.
That is the kind of reply we get in Canada. I thought that was very interesting because I knew that, using the American freedom of information act in the United States, individuals and organizations had been able to gain access to and acquire copies of information from CIA and FBI Files from the 1960s and 1970s.
I wrote to the Director of the FBI asking to be furnished with a copy of any file which they had on me. I received a reply in January, 1984 acknowledging receipt of my request and indicating that a search of the records would be made to determine if the information I was looking for existed. Then on February 13 I received a letter from the Chief of the Freedom of Information Privacy Acts sections of the FBI which reads as follows:
This is in further response to your Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts ... request. Information pertaining to your request has been set forth below in appropriate paragraphs-
Documents have been located which may pertain to your request and they will be assigned for processing in the near future.
For your information, as a result of the large number of... requests received by the FBI, some delay may be encountered in processing your request.
Just think how ridiculous this situation is, Mr. Speaker. We live in Canada, a middle-sized power with virtually no record of violence, where information about people is being kept secret. The United States is a world power, a country in which Presidents have been assassinated and bombings and shootings have occurred. In the United States, the authorities are quite willing to allow people access to the information which is contained in their files. That is an indication of how seriously the Government of Canada takes the whole question of access to information and how that secrecy impinges upon the right of Canadians to receive the kind of information to which we believe they are entitled.
What do we see in this Bill, Mr. Speaker? The McDonald Commission recommended that the security agency have extensive powers, powers which we think are too great. However, along with those powers, the commission recommended a
March 9, 1984

strong set of controls. Those controls are not contained within this Bill at the present time. As a matter of fact, the first Bill which preceded this Bill met with much hostility. I say to the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), who seemed to suggest this morning that only members of the NDP were concerned about this Bill, that the first such Bill met with almost unanimous condemnation from civil liberties organizations, Bar Associations and a host of other organizations. Most of the objections which these organizations raised have not really been looked into or dealt with in the present Bill.
The Government has refused to prosecute those RCMP agents who were involved in the illegal activities to which 1 referred earlier. Indeed, the Government has refused to discipline those agents, and in the case of one superintendent, not only was he not prosecuted or disciplined but he received a promotion. We have the idea, which may seem quaint to members of the Government, that if Canadians are expected to be law abiding, as they are, they have the right to expect that all Canadians will abide by the laws, including the members of the security service. Unless all Canadians obey the law, we cannot expect anyone to obey the law.
It is taking the Government too long to bring in legislation designed to create an up-to-date and efficient security service. As I have indicated, the first attempt, Bill C-157, was attacked by lawyers, civil libertarians, trade unions and the provincial Attorneys General. It was so deficient that it had to be withdrawn. That Bill gave the security service authority to open mail and enter premises surreptitiously and it gave the service access to confidential government information without the controls recommended by the McDonald Commission. Allan Borovoy of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association said that under the terms of that Bill as it was formulated, Canadian citizens could have their conversations bugged, their mail opened, their homes surreptitiously searched and their confidential records invaded, even though there was not the slightest suggestion that any law-breaking was involved.
[DOT] (M20)
This Bill provides for a Security Intelligence Review Committee comprised of Privy Councillors, former Cabinet Ministers, provincial Premiers or judges. I will not dwell on who the Government may appoint. When one looks at appointments the Government has made in all the fields where it makes appointments, one gets a pretty fair idea of the kind of support and co-operation it expects and gets.
Even this committee, however, will not have access to all documents; Cabinet documents are excluded. Nor does it provide for a review by this committee of the intelligence activities of other Departments. And most important, there is no provision for a parliamentary committee on security and intelligence.
In countries with a larger population than Canada, countries which have much more serious security problems than Canada has-I have mentioned the United States but the same is true of West Germany-parliamentary committees supervise the intelligence activities. There has never been a case where any
Security Intelligence Service
member of the intelligence committee in the United States or West Germany has made public anything which might create difficulties for the security agencies in those countries. There should be a parliamentary committee with the authority to keep records of what the security service in Canada is doing.
The definition of who can be investigated is sadly deficient. People supporting resistance to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan could be investigated; an organization supporting some of the liberation movements in Africa could be investigated; people supporting the Government of Israel's activities in opposition to certain Arab countries or terrorism could be investigated. We know that in recent years the RCMP has kept under surveillance church groups that have been involved in the kind of activities I have mentioned.


Mr. Kaplan:: That is false. Church leaders are not under surveillance.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Then who is? Why don't you open the files?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says that is wrong. The Minister can interject as he has and say that church leaders are not under surveillance. I say to him that there is evidence which has never been denied that people involved in Operation Dismantle were kept under surveillance. I will wait for the Minister to deny that.


Paul James Cosgrove: God watches us all. God looks out for everyone.


David Orlikow: If the Minister does not, it is obvious that he knows that people involved in Operation Dismantle have been kept under surveillance. It is not important whether we agree with the work of the people involved in Operation Dismantle or not; the point is that they are conducting an open campaign in a peaceful way and they ought not to be under the surveillance of any security service.
In the United States telephone tapping, clandestine search or the use of undercover information must have the approval of their Attorney General. That would not be the case in Canada as a result of this legislation. Under this Bill judges determine who will be investigated and how individuals or groups will be investigated. Yet the Attorney General for Ontario, Mr. McMurtry, has described some of the definitions in the Act as being "flabby".
Both in Canada and in the United States a wide variety of legal activities have been investigated. I indicated one example, PQ membership. In the United States the FBI guidelines require that there be a reasonable indication that violence will occur in the not too distant future. This Bill has no such provision. The United States law requires reapplication for permission to wire-tap every 30 days; in Canada the Bill provides for reapplication once a year.
We are not opposed to Canada having a security service. We are not opposed to the security service doing the job it ought to do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why not let the Bill go to committee then?

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


David Orlikow: What we are opposed to is the kind of things the RCMP did in past years and which we believe a new security service will do because the Act will make legal the illegal things that were done in the past.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Read the Act.


David Orlikow: That is why we oppose the Bill, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a comment. I note that there are some interjections from the Government side of the House, yet not a single Liberal Member other than the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary has been prepared, in four days of debate, to stand and defend the Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You know why. It is because we want the Bill to move to committee. You want it to stay here.


Svend Johannes Robinson: They have refused to defend the Bill because they know what this Bill will do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: You know why we are waiting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the Hon. Member where he was this morning when I interjected and took part in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that not a single Member on that side of the House has taken part in the debate by making a speech, other than the Minister and his Parliamentary Secretary. If they want to defend this Bill, I challenge them to rise and do so. The Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) has sat through the debate. Let us hear his views on this Bill, or let us hear one of the other Ministers, instead of having them interject but refusing to take part in the debate.
My question to the Hon. Member is with respect to an incident which he no doubt is well aware of since he was in the House at the time it was raised. I refer to the break-in and the arson at the public interest group, Praxis Corporation. Would he comment on the implications of that particular break-in and the fact that somehow, in some mysterious way, the documents stolen from Praxis Corporation ended up in the hands of the RCMP security service. Today, some 14 or 15 years later, in a lawsuit filed by Praxis Corporation against the Solicitor General of Canada, the Solicitor General has refused to allow a whole series of documents to be brought into court.


Paul James Cosgrove: Would you repeat your question?


Svend Johannes Robinson: He is muzzling the full disclosure of the RCMP involvement in the Praxis Corporation break-in. I should like to ask the Member-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This is question time under the rules. This hon. gentleman, who has already spoken on the Bill, is attempting to introduce new debate, which he is not entitled to in accordance with the rules of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. The ten-minute period is for questions, answers and comments. If the Hon. Member wants to use his time to make a comment, he can do so. The Hon. Member has been speaking for some while but I saw no interest from any other Member and I let him continue. Perhaps he could wrap up either his comments or his question.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) would like to rise in his place and enlighten us on his views on this legislation at the appropriate time.
I should like to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North to elaborate on his views with respect to what happened at Praxis Corporation and the dangers that incident would pose when dealing with a government which is asking for powers which significantly exceed the powers the present security service has.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The Hon. Member for Burnaby knows that that is highly improper.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do not prejudice your friend's chances of having a fair trial.


David Orlikow: I have no intention of saying anything which would jeopardize the case. However, I point out to Hon. Members on the Government side and to the Ministers who have been interjecting that in Canada documents stolen from an organization wound up in the possession of the RCMP who refused to turn those documents over.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Should you not let the judge decide that?


David Orlikow: If the Minister wants to speak, I wish he would get up to speak on his own time and not mine.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I have spoken.


David Orlikow: 1 simply want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada there were documents stolen from an organization which would up in the possession of the RCMP. I am not saying the RCMP security service stole those documents. I do not know. However, it has the documents and refuses to produce them. In very similar situations in the United States, Mr. Speaker, organizations and groups who were investigated and infiltrated by the FBI have used the American Freedom of Information/Privacy Acts and have obtained copies of all the files which that security agency has.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, as I did in my speech, that there is something very sad about a situation in which a world power like the United States can open its files and give information
March 9, 1984

to its citizens, while a country like Canada with so few problems refuses to follow a similar course.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask the Hon. Member a question, the comments made by his colleague are designed to make the people in the gallery and the people in Burnaby think that somehow or other Hon. Members on this side of the House do not want a reform of our national security arrangement. Indeed, we do.


Mr. Benjamin:: Prove it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Hon. Members opposite are saying they want a reform also. The vehicle for that is moving this Bill through committee. I wonder if the people in the gallery realize that the Hon. Member intends to put every member of his Party up on their feet to speak on this Bill with the sole purpose, I would suggest-and I am asking-of preventing the Government from moving this Bill to committee so that there can be a reform of the national security arrangements.
Does the Hon. Member realize that his speech, and all the other speeches which Hon. Members of his Party intend to stand up and make, are providing a good opportunity and a good possibility of preventing this important reform from moving forward? To suggest that more of us should stand up to speak, to me just proves that. Perhaps the people of Burnaby can be taken in by that, I hope not for long. I wonder if the Hon. Member really believes so.


Paul James Cosgrove: Look at them laughing.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish the Solicitor General would be, first of all, serious-


Jean-Jacques Blais: He is serious.


David Orlikow: -and, second, honest. We are dealing with a Bill which arises out of an investigation which took four years and cost millions of dollars.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: How many of your Members are going to
speak?


David Orlikow: That investigation by the royal commission led to a long series of recommendations. It is our contention, Mr. Speaker, and we are supported in this contention by the Civil Liberties Association and many of the Bar Associations and lawyers, that this Bill is somewhat better than the first Bill but it still has major deficiencies.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So let us take it to committee.


David Orlikow: I say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, that if the royal commission which his Government appointed could take four years to investigate and to write a report, then it will not be too bad for the people of Canada if we take another day or two to debate this Bill.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We started in 1969, do you know that?
Security Intelligence Service


David Orlikow: To say that by keeping this Bill going past closing time today we are trying to destroy this Bill is just not true, and the Minister knows it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I find the remarks of the Solicitor General and his colleague, the former Minister on the front bench, absolutely incredible. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation we could debate. It has never really been debated in the House of Commons.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You say that on each piece of legislation.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It has been debated among Liberals, Senator Pitfield and in the Senate, but it has never been debated in the House of Commons where the people's representatives are.


Jean-Jacques Blais: You did the same thing on the Crow. On every piece of legislation you do exactly the same thing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We in the New Democratic Party make no apologies, Mr. Speaker, for not letting the Government get away with things like having 800,000 files on Canadians and opening first-class mail. We are not going to let them railroad the people and we make no apologies.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Thirteen per cent in the last poll and that's where you deserve to be.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: We are going to continue this debate until hell freezes over, if we have to, until we get the Government to bring in a decent security service which will protect ordinary Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: Order, please. That is the end of the ten-minute question period. Debate.


William Herbert Jarvis: One would never know this is a Friday afternoon, Mr. Speaker. I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is almost a cliche when someone rises, particularly on second reading, to say how pleased they are to make their contribution and how much they welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. I do not question for a moment the sincerity of any of us who say that rather repeatedly.
With respect to Bill C-9, the security intelligence Bill, I do not welcome the opportunity to speak. I am not particularly happy about the Bill. I am very concerned and deeply troubled, Mr. Speaker, and, worst of all, I am very uncertain about this legislation.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There is nothing new about that.


William Herbert Jarvis: Someone says there is nothing new about that. No, there is not. There have been other Bills with which I have been troubled, concerned and uncertain and, unhappily, I do not have the perfection of my friends from the New Democratic Party and the divine revelation which comes to them with every piece of legislation,


Jean-Jacques Blais: Nor the holiness.

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service


William Herbert Jarvis: I believe part of my concern and uncertainty is that this is an extremely important piece of legislation. I would go so far as to suggest that if these times were normal times- by that I mean if they were normal in the economic and social sense, and if we were not in the midst of political events of high priority and high profile-this piece of legislation would have an extraordinary amount of publicity across this country.


Jean-Luc Pepin: When were times ever normal?


William Herbert Jarvis: The Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin) asks me when were times ever normal. I guess it is like the "ordinary, reasonable man"; it is a piece of fiction. But there are certainly times which approach normality closer than the times in which we now find ourselves.
I suppose that is part of the cause for my concern. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), put it clearly on the first day of debate when he said that we have "responsibility, as Members of Parliament, to ensure the right balance between national security and the fundamental principles of a free and democratic society". That is a challenge and a serious one. The Minister himself in that same debate, when he opened second reading debate, talked about "the necessary balance between effective national security and the civil liberties which are fundamental to our society".
The seriousness of the challenge is enough for concern, trouble and uncertainty, but I believe my feelings are compounded-and I am trying to put this as kindly as I can, for lack of better words-because I feel we are dealing with tainted legislation. I believe it is tainted in three distinct aspects. One aspect I do not believe is terribly important. It happens to be a fact of political life, and that is the timing of the bill. We all know that in any election year the atmosphere of debate and the approach towards various pieces of legislation takes on an added aura, and that is the election aura. We have seen Bills recently which could be quite legitimately called political bills. They were not substantive in the sense that we regard legislation as substantive; they were political bills. I am not terribly critical. That is a fact of political life. Anyone who has been around here for any length of time will understand that.
However, the two other aspects are much more important with respect to this legislation. They are the history of the legislation and the substance of the legislation and are very much interrelated.
I am happy the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is here because I am speaking very seriously about this. I would like to take a quotation from his speech on second reading as my starting point. He said:
Bill C-9 is the result of a long and difficult process which began 15 years ago.
It certainly has been long and difficult. Without wishing to nit-pick, I quarrel with his word "process". If you use that word in the broad sense, I suppose it has been a process. But I am afraid there has not been any legislative process and that is
part of the problem. What we have had, unhappily-I am not pointing any fingers; I am simply stating what I believe to be an objective view of the facts-is a series of reactions or non-actions. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) interjected a moment ago to the effect that it is 15 years old. Yes, it is 15 years since the Mackenzie report, but that was followed by absolutely nothing. There was no action, not even a reaction. There was absolutely nothing for almost a decade and then the roof fell in.
I remember that well because I had been Solicitor General critic for 11 days when that roof fell in. We remember some very unhappy days in the House during that time which led up to the McDonald Commission. I do not criticize the establishment of that commission; it worked very hard and diligently to produce a very large report. But that was a reaction to the atmosphere in the House after revelation after revelation of alleged wrongdoing. After that commission reported, nothing happened for almost two years. Finally, we had the disaster, unfortunately, of Bill C-157. I do not know who drafted that Bill; I doubt very much the Solicitor General fully appreciated what a mess he was getting himself and the rest of us into with that particular Bill. But again it prompted a reaction, not a process.
Then, Mr. Speaker, a select committee of the Senate was formed. It worked diligently and its report was a damning condemnation. Now we have Bill C-9, a reaction to Senator Pitfield and his colleagues' report from the select committee of the Senate. As I said, it has not been a legislative process as I understand it. A legislative process is nothing more than exercise of government power, which is the right and responsibility to provide a service to the country and its people. It may be a social service, economic or cultural service, or it may be, as in this case, in the field of security.
As I understand the four-step process, Mr. Speaker, the Government examines the need for a new or altered service. That is often triggered by an event, perhaps a dramatic event, or perhaps a cumulative pressure on the Government to do something. It may be a report such as the Mackenzie report, but something happens to trigger that first step. The second step is the Government's diligent examination of the impact or significance of the implementation of the service or change. It may be very minor; a change in a custom's regulation. It could be very major, as I believe is the case with this particular legislation.
The third step is that if there is a major significant impact, then you make sure the public understands it. Before the technical process begins, make sure the public understands it. That can be done in any number of ways, by many vehicles. It could be a discussion or position paper, speeches by the Minister, reference to committee for study; there are all kinds of vehicles to use. I suppose the cliche is: Run it up the flagpole to see if anyone salutes it, or test the waters, or whatever. But it is a very legitimate part of the four-step process. Of course, the final part is to go through the technical process that we find ourselves in now.
March 9, 1984

With respect to the third part, if I can quote the Minister, who I think was dead on when he was talking about the legal framework, he said:
We also believe that such a framework cannot be effective unless we have the support and understanding of the public.
Dead on, Mr. Speaker. I completely concur. Unfortunately,
I do not think the Minister followed his own advice.
Having put it in that four-step context, I hope the Government and the Minister understand what I mean when I say the Bill is tainted. The first step, the examination of the need for a security intelligence service, I suppose was prompted by the Mackenzie Commission, but nothing happened. Nothing really happened after the McDonald Commission for two years. The second step, the examination of significance or impact, was really skipped, unhappily. We certainly did not have the opportunity to discuss it here in the House. The only discussion up until second reading of Bill C-9, I think, was a couple of hours' debate when the Mackenzie report was tabled some 15 years ago. Absolutely nothing has been done to examine publicly the significance or impact of this legislation. Unhappily, Bill C-157 is proof that there was not a diligent and careful examination of the impact of this legislation.
Those steps were ignored, Mr. Speaker, and where does that leave us? Well, we have to deal with this Bill. I am a little concerned because I am quite sure the Minister was not pressing the House to put this Bill into committee fast. He certainly did not say so on February 10. I commend him for that because every Minister likes his Bill to go through the House and into committee. However, I am starting to detect signs of impatience this afternoon. I do not agree with everything the NDP said, far from it, but in 15 years there has not been any real, legitimate debate on the whole area of security and intelligence. Unfortunately, it is compressed into Bill C-9. I say "unfortunately" in all sincerity. It is unfortunate, but it is a fact. The 15 years of legitimate need for debate is compressed into Bill C-9.
That leads me to a very unhappy position, Mr. Speaker. I now regard some of the statements of the Solicitor General with some suspicion, if not cynicism. I am going to use two or three examples. The Minister said:
I am convinced that the mandate described in the Bill amounts to the best possible protection of civil liberties in Canada.
I would really like to be able to say: Yes, I agree. However, I am not in that position, not because of the substantive provisions of the Bill but because of the history, the cloud, changing over this. He then goes on to say:
The Solicitor General will be fully responsible and fully accountable for the security service, as in the present system.
Again I have grave difficulty accepting that statement because I sat here in the pre-McDonald Commission period, as the Solicitor General did although not in that position, and heard more than one Solicitor General deny responsibility. They said: "Oh, that is the day to day operation". Of course the Solicitor General is not responsible for the day to day operations of the RCMP or the security service. Of course not.
Security Intelligence Service


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, he is.


William Herbert Jarvis: But they were so cumulative that they affected the very principle of ministerial responsibility. Therefore, when the Minister makes a statement like the one he made on February 10, given the history of this legislation, how can he with any reasonableness expect me to accept that at face value? I cannot do it because the history leading up to Bill C-9 does not permit me to do that.
Finally, we have the statement:
The Review Committee will have full access to detailed information on the activities of the service.
We are talking about accountability. I have to say to the Minister that if there is to be accountability, it has to be complete. There is no such thing as being half accountable or partially accountable or even 99 per cent accountable. Unless it is complete accountability, there is no such thing. Unless those Cabinet documents in the possession of the security service are opened to the Inspector General, and through him to the Review Committee, I say there is not accountability. Those documents in the possession of the security service, even though they are classified as a Cabinet document, are likely the most vital documents relating to accountability.
As a result of this it will be heavy going in the committee. However, we have had committees before which were heavy going. I think the Minister and his colleagues on the Treasury benches have to be very flexible about this. I do not think there is any way to avoid giving this committee permission to travel. The historic element, the separation of the proposed force from the traditional RCMP force, dictates that necessity. Given the chequered career that this legislation has had, I see no way around that at all.
I believe it was either the Minister or my colleague for Saskatoon West who spoke about the morale of the force. I am concerned about that, as I think we all should be. While the principle of upholding the morale within the RCMP security intelligence branch is important, it is not as important as the principles of civil liberties and the security of the country. Therefore, while that morale may continue to suffer because of the 15 long and difficult years, I regret it very much but there are other principles which I believe are paramount to that. Those are the principles of the protection of our rights as citizens and the protection of the integrity of our country from those who would seek to attack it. I wish I had more time to deal with the mandate and powers; I know I have not.
Before the Speaker cuts me off, I would like to say that my principal concern is accountability. The Minister has made significant changes from Bill C-157. I am speaking about changes with respect to the operation and powers of the Director. I am a little concerned because the Bill does not correspond with the Senate committee report. I am concerned about the provision that the Minister may issue written directions to the Director. What about oral directions? Should all directions not be in writing? Would this provision create an

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
incentive for the Solicitor General not to reduce his directions to writing? If that became the case I would be concerned.
I am concerned about the establishment of the office of the Inspector General. Unless the Solicitor General follows the recommendations of the Senate committee which would allow the Inspector General access to Cabinet documents within the possession of the security service, accountability sadly suffers. Unless the accountability is 100 per cent, I do not believe it amounts to anything. The Inspector General would be deprived of the directives and documents of a Cabinet nature which he gets from his political superiors, which I believe is most important.
Finally, unless the Inspector General has access to those particular Cabinet documents, the review committee will not. My comments with respect to the Inspector General apply equally, and possibly with greater force, to the review committee.
With respect to the make-up of the review committee, I am not sure whether it is better to have Privy Councillors as compared to those who are now serving in either the House or Senate. I believe the recommended number is three to five Members. I doubt that that is large enough; it may be. The Senate committee in the United States has reasonably good sized membership composed of very senior and prestigious senators in that country. It is very prestigious in the sense that you are judged by your peers to be privy to highly confidential information.
I presume my time is just about up. I have no particular comment to make at the second reading stage with respect to the make-up of that review committee. I think that is something we could deal with in committee. I believe committee stage is absolutely crucial if the Bill is to be rescued. I believe it should be. I believe there should be a security service, either inside the RCMP or outside. The committee stage is going to be absolutely crucial to that.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. He has referred to the work of both the Inspector General and the review committee. Does the Hon. Member think it would be important or useful for either of those agencies to have the right, if it is felt necessary, to make public their questions and findings if they find the security service has acted improperly, as the McDonald Commission found the security service of the RCMP had done in earlier years?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I believe I read the Bill carefully. I thought there was a provision for the review committee to report to Parliament at least annually, if not more often. I support that reporting principle.
Perhaps the Hon. Member's question is a little broader than that. If a particular incident occurs, should or could the review committee make it public? I would agree to that subject to it not threatening or putting in danger the security of the state.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone would want any information to get out which would endanger security. However, if the Inspector General and the review committee are bound by the oath of secrecy, all they will be able to do is report to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General can then decide whether to take action. We know from past experience that if Solicitors General knew what was going on they were, to say the least, loath to do anything about it. Surely the right of both of these groups to make public the type of situation which had occurred, although not necessarily the specific details of the act, in order for corrective action to be taken would be a necessary part of an Act which will do the job we want it to do.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, there are two report clauses, Clauses 52 and 53. Clause 54 is a special report section. I would have to read them carefully to discover whether they address the concerns of the Hon. Member. I notice one report must be laid before Parliament on any of the first 15 days on which the House is sitting after the Minister receives it. I do not know whether that will address his particular concern. There are four or five clauses dealing with reports so I really cannot be any more specific than that.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment with respect to the last point which was made by the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis). The Member is quite correct that there is provision in the legislation for reporting to Parliament. The difficulty with that, as was pointed out by my colleague from Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), is that before this report is tabled in Parliament the Inspector General of the civilian security servie must vet the report. It is up to the Inspector General to go through that report with a finetoothed comb and ensure that in no way is the oath of secrecy of the members of the Security Intelligence Review Committee in any way breached. Therefore, the only document which could possibly come before the House would be a document so meaningless and devoid of any content that it would not be able to draw attention to any wrongdoing which had been identified.
Perhaps I can ask the Hon. Member a question and then he could comment. The McDonald Commission strongly recommended the establishment of a parliamentary oversight committee, made up of Members on all sides of the House, which would have full access to all of the documentation and the budget of the new civilian security service.
Similar committees are in existence in the Senate and the House of Representatives in the United States, in West Germany and elsewhere. The Hon. Member has considerable experience in this area and I know that he is a former spokesperson for his Party on justice and is an active member of the Justice Committee. I would be most interested to hear his views with respect to this very sensible suggestion of the McDonald Commission. It is a suggestion which unfortunately has been rejected in this Bill.


William Herbert Jarvis: With respect to the comment about the fact that the report would be meaningless or have nothing in it, to use
March 9, 1984

the Hon. Member's words, I am not so sure that I would be so quick to prejudge what that type of report would be. I am quite prepared to discuss and debate that in committee, which 1 believe is the place to do it. My opinion is quite flexible in that respect.
With respect to his second point, it is quite difficult to say who should be the watcher of watchers. The Minister proposes a committee of Privy Councillors. On the other hand, it was proposed by either McDonald or Mackenzie to have a watchdog committee composed of Members, as it is in the United States. A few years ago I would have opted for Members, without question. Now, as I approach the exalted status of being nothing more than a Privy Councillor, whenever the election occurs, my opinion of Privy Councillors is starting to go up. However, 1 do not want to be facetious. On balance, I believe I prefer the recommendation of the McDonald Commission. I regret that I am not on the particular committee that will be studying this, but I would be quite prepared to discuss the two alternatives at committee stage.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Jarvis) a question. He has followed this entire issue as critic and now as a member of the Loyal Opposition responsible for this legislation. He has shown a great deal of interest in this particular legislation and knows full well how controversial and sensitive it has been. The questions which he has been asked today in terms of the content of his address have been basically directed to matters that can be dealt with in committee. In view of those facts and the fact that the security service now is basically in limbo as a result of the legislation being introduced and the uncertainty in view of the NDP's attitude toward the passage of this legislation, would he not agree that it is time that we proceeded to send this Bill to committee so that the matter can be dealt with there very thoroughly, and that the committee should take as much time as it requires to deal with all the specific items that are still controversial and need to be resolved?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the short answer has to be no. I might comment that I am not responsible for our Party-


Jean-Jacques Blais: You should be.


William Herbert Jarvis: The Minister says I should be. I should be the Minister of National Defence, but the fact is that I am not.
To deal seriously with what the Minister of National Defence puts to me, the short answer, regrettably, is no. The reason is that during 15 years-the Minister is well aware of this, having served as Solicitor General-there has not been public debate on this in the House. The only occasion was when the Mackenzie report was tabled. I believe the debate lasted either two hours or four hours.
The Government side may not like the quality of the debate. That is unfortunate. The quality of the contributions may not be of what it thinks are acceptable standards, but who are we to judge our colleagues? If there remains room for legitimate concern and for positive contributions at second reading stage,
Security Intelligence Service
then I do not believe that we should be in a hurry to send the Bill to committee. I emphasized the committee stage because I thought there was an enormous amount of work to do there. 1 think the Minister of National Defence implied in his question that he agrees that there is an enormous amount of work to do.
I will not use the usual vehicle of blaming the Government for holding off the legislation this long, but now we are at this stage I do not think I would tip my hand, were I the Solicitor General or a Member of the Government, by trying to push it through second reading stage too quickly. Often that results in its going more slowly than quickly. That has been my experience.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, a number of comments have been made in the House regarding the committee stage and the fact that the committee should have the right to travel. As well, the Senate committee did hold extensive hearings but did not travel, which meant that only those who could afford to come here did so. Has the Hon. Member heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) indicate a willingness to have the committee travel?


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, no, I have not heard the Solicitor General's opinion on that. I alluded to it during my contribution to the debate, perhaps too quickly. I merely thought it was absolutely essential that the committee travel. For example, those of us from Ontario are not sufficiently aware of the historic roots of the RCMP in western Canada to be as sensitive as we should. Taking the security service outside of the RCMP may cause fellow Canadians in other provinces, particularly in the West, grave concern. It may be an emotional concern. An emotional concern is a legitimate concern. I do not know how the committee can possibly discharge its responsibilities without being empowered to travel.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to add a few words of wisdom to the debate this afternoon on Bill C-9, the successive Bill to Bill C-157 that was dealt with in the last session of Parliament and gone over in some detail by the Senate committee.
When we look at the question with which we are faced today, namely the establishment of an independent Canadian Security Intelligence Service, we will see that there has been a gestation period of considerable length. The idea of a separate service and the idea of a specific Act of Parliament to control activities of a Security Intelligence Service goes back to sometime before the 1969 report of the Mackenzie Commission. It has been around that long. Very good recommendations were made on this subject by the McDonald Commission. I understand that it published its findings in 1981. There has been some debate in Parliament. It certainly has been a matter that has come up from time to time in Question Period. It has been on the minds of parliamentarians both in the House and the other place for some time. It has been a subject of comment in the press for a number of years. It has also been a matter of debate within the Department of Justice, within the interior works of Government, and I have known some of the people in the Department of Justice who have been involved in bringing

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
this legislation forth. I should like to compliment them on the work they have done in this regard.
While handing out compliments, I think some could be validly paid to our colleagues in the Senate whose committee did some excellent work on the old Bill C-157. We can thank them for the improved form that we have today.
As we debate this issue and study it, as public concerns are raised and debated, it seems that we are proceeding to some kind of general consensus on what type of Security and Intelligence Service would serve us best in Canada.
I would like to examine some of the issues, a non-exhaustive list of them but nevertheless issues which I would consider to be important ones which are addressed in this Bill, as they should be because they are certainly important when it comes to security work.
First, the security agency should operate under the rule of law. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case in the past, as the McDonald Commission has brought to light. Unfortunately, from time to time a security agency of the type that we envisage and of the type which exists presently in Canada and elsewhere in the world would have to do things that are normally outside of the law. So what we must build into the Bill, which I believe is there in large measure, although it will be examined again in committee, is some judicial control over actions which may become necessary in the best interests of Canada.
As I understand it, under this Act, if the security service would want to tap a telephone, open mail, or do any of these other things to which we have a natural repugnance but which may be necessary, it would have to seek judicial consent and get itself some kind of warrant. I hope that when such warrants are issued by some members of the judiciary they will not be blanket warrants. We do not want anything of the nature of a writ of assistance, which fortunately we are going to be rid of. Such warrants would give specific authority to do certain specific things within a certain specified time period. I hope that when judges are requested and give permission for these types of things to happen, they will be very cognizant of what they are doing and will be very careful and insist on having presented to them sufficient facts to justify the granting of such permission before they give that permission.
The second issue I would like to speak about briefly is the protection of the general public against possible abuse by the security service. In this imperfect world, even in a non-militaristic country like Canada-and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) knows how non-militaristic we are-there is a need for a security service. I hope it will be of a passive nature rather than an active nature, by which I mean that we would not go to other countries ferreting out their secrets. In other words, I hope it will operate within Canada and it will be a counter-espionage sort of organization instead of one that actively promotes espionage and related activities.
We need such a service, but it must not be allowed to get out of hand. I personally do not share in a paranoia of members of
the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker. I have a reasonable degree of confidence in officialdom in Canada. I know that often this is not a popular thing to say and that it is something that we on this side of the House very seldom say, but by and large the police in Canada, the existing security service within the RCMP, do a pretty good job, I think, and honest, law-abiding Canadians do not have much to fear from them. However, from time to time things do go wrong. There must be guidelines for the conduct of security officers laid down in the Act that is to govern them. There must be constant surveillance of the agents themselves to see they do not breach or use in excess the powers given to them. There must be a recourse for a person who feels he or she is wrongfully being investigated. Maybe they feel they have been harassed. There must be a recourse where they can go for a redress to their grievances. What we are saying here is that there must be a system of review.
I am pleased to see that a system of review is built into the Bill. It is a fairly sophisticated system of review. I hope that when this matter is studied in committee we can improve it even more, because it is of fundamental importance. One of the mechanisms for the protection of individuals in the Bill would be the establishment of the office of Inspector General. The Inspector General must have available to him or her full powers to question officers within the service. The Inspector General must have access to documents and files within the security service. He must not be impeded in any way from conducting his or her activities of supervising the security service. Maybe supervising is wrong because that is, of course, the responsibility of the director, but perhaps keeping tabs on the security service and keeping tabs on the director of the security service.
I personally like the idea of the Security Intelligence Review Committee. It is a very novel and interesting concept, having a committee of Privy Councillors who are not Members of Parliament either in this House or in the other place. It has never been tried before in this context or in other contexts as far as I know. It certainly has things to recommend it. I hope this is an idea that will be studied in detail in committee. We need to study the number, whether three or five or whatever number is sufficient. I am not adverse to trying out this idea of a committee of Privy Councillors to whom complaints can be made and who will receive the report of the Inspector General and report to Parliament on how the operation of the security service is going.
We must have built into the Bill accountability to Parliament. It must be the Minister who is accountable to Parliament. That goes without saying, Sir. I hope that parliamentarians will always have the opportunity to question the responsible Minister on the operations of the security service that reports to Parliament through him.
When we look at the review mechanisms that have been carefully incorporated into the Bill, the most important thing is that it will all depend upon the quality of the people who are appointed to these positions. We can be very, very careful on paper. It can seem like a system incapable of failure, but
March 9, 1984

unless we appoint the right people to the right jobs, then of course anything can fail, and no matter how well we draft the Bill, there is always the danger that the finer points of the law will not be kept and that it could slide downhill.
It will be most important who gets the job as director of the organization, who becomes the Inspector General and who makes up the committee. They will have to be people we can trust and 1 mean by that Canadians as a whole. They must be people in whom Canadians can have confidence. When I see some of the appointments that have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Members of his Government I have cause for concern. I get kind of scared as to who might get these jobs that are so important to Canadians. I am sure many other Canadians share that fear.
Another issue is that the NDP has made the right of dissent its sole and most important objection to this Bill. We in Canada have always enjoyed the right of dissent. As a Member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I am very jealous of the right of dissent and would not want it to disappear. It would accord hon. gentlemen opposite after the next election the same right of dissent which we on this side presently enjoy. The people of Canada must have and maintain the right to seek a change in government or a change in the social or economic order of Canada through peaceful and constitutional means. Of course they must not resort to subversion or go against the Constitution of Canada, but they must have the right to seek change through peaceful and constitutional means free of harassment by officialdom.
I would now like to refer to the principal issue in this Bill. It is the most important and most talked about by the man on the street. I am referring to whether or not we should have an independent security agency and not use the RCMP as we do at the present time. It was the recommendation of both Mackenzie and McDonald that there be an independent agency. In fact, most countries of the world have independent agencies. Of that there is no doubt. When talking to experts in this field, I have found that they invariably point out the basic difference between police work proper and security work. The latter, security work, is very much intelligence gathering as opposed to strictly law enforcement. I am pleased to see, however, that when it comes time for charges to be laid under the Official Secrets Act or perhaps under the Criminal Code, the RCMP will be brought in to do that, which is quite correctly police work. This is a proposal under the Bill.
Despite some bad examples, it is my opinion that the security service of the RCMP has done a pretty good job over the years. Therefore, there is no great and immediate urgency to change. It might be desirable that we do so, and I am quite prepared to discuss that. However, unlike the Minister of National Defence, I do not think it is something which has to be done today, tomorrow or a week hence. We could continue for a period of some time to debate this matter.
Then I come to the principal difficulty of getting this concept of an independent agency across to the public of
Security Intelligence Service
Canada. We have a Bill which makes a good deal of sense, if one chooses to read it. It is something which should be discussed and has considerable merit. However, the public of Canada just does not trust the present Government; it has no confidence in the present Government. However, it has confidence in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The public of Canada is used to the force and has generally received good service from it. That is not something which could be said about the Government. Therefore, any proposed change in security matters by the present Government of Canada is rejected out of hand by the Canadian population because of the distrust which exists. If we look at the horror stories in the Department of National Revenue, we know that the Government has lost control of that Department. We hope that it will never lose control of the security agency. If we look at the attitude of people within that Department of Government, if we look at the complaints system when citizens are ajudged to be guilty unless they can prove themselves to be innocent at great expense to themselves, when we see those types of things going wrong within a Government Department under the jurisdiction of the hon. gentleman opposite, then we cannot help but think that the people of Canada are reluctant to agree with any proposed change in security matters when the people over there still exist as the Government.
My conclusion therefore is that there are some very good points in the Bill. It deserves additional debate. I would like to see at least some of its recommendations come into force, but the timing is wrong because Canadians do not trust the Government which is in office today; they do not trust the Liberal Government. Before this Bill can be made into law and put into force with the consent of the Canadian public, we must change the Government.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) a question. He went on at some length to express his confidence that any civilian Canadian security and intelligence agency would not exceed its bounds. Also he stated that some Canadians might be surprised at that statement. However, I must say that that statement was, to say the least, rather odd in view of the tremendous furor which he and his Conservative colleagues raised over what they called the recent covert activities of staff in the Office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in spying and engaging in "dirty tricks" investigations of Opposition politicians. Is he now saying that he and his colleagues at that time were just playing the game of Trivial Pursuit in the House? If that is not what he is saying, on what does he base his current statement of faith and confidence in the Government and its agencies that they will not tamper with the right of their legitimate political opposition, which his Party suggested was the case only a few days ago?
I do not share that kind of suspicion but I would suggest to him-and I hope he bears it in mind in his answer-that it is not enough to have confidence in the Government and its agencies in these kinds of areas in normal times. We must design our laws in such a way that if we get into abnormal times such as we did at the time of the so-called FLQ crisis, we

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
still have safeguards in the law to protect us from abuses which any government is tempted to commit in times of severe stress.
My main question to him is: Were they engaging in Trivial Pursuit just a few weeks ago? If not, on what does he base his current statement of faith in the activities of the Government and its agencies?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I certainly did not say that I had any faith in the Government. If by that he meant the hon. gentlemen sitting on the Treasury benches, I have very little faith in them. What I said was that by and large I think we have a very competent and honest bureaucracy in Canada. Most people I have met during my daily rounds, both as a Member of Parliament and before coming to this House, whether they serve in the passport office or are employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare, try to do a good job for the people of Canada. It does not mean to say that there are not some exceptions. I went to considerable length in my dissertation this afternoon to point out that when it comes to police and security matters, there must be built into the legislation which governs the activities of these types of departments and agencies something more and something special so that the interests of the citizens to be able to engage in dissenting activities in order to press for change, political or otherwise, should not be hampered. I thought I dealt with that in great detail.
It would appear that my own view and that of the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) on this matter are not at all widely divergent. We would seem to be of very much one and the same mind on this issue.
I turn to the shenanigans to which the Hon. Member referred which were going on a week or so ago. These were conducted not by the ordinary government employee who is non-partisan and non-political and whose job is administration. These activities were engaged in by employees of the Prime Minister's Office, an office which is right at the top of the hierarchy. Unfortunately, we can see the rot setting in, and the rot is setting in from the top. I do not like or approve of the things that went on in the Prime Minister's Office, but I do not think that it is the normal, average bureaucrat, public servant in Canada, who is responsible for that type of insidious activity.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I suppose that some of the same rot that has set in must have seeped across the way to the offices of the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney). Of course, the same kinds of files were found in his office, and in fact in much greater quantity.
I would like to ask a very straightforward question of the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). Does the Hon. Member in fact support the recommendations of the McDonald Commission for a civilian security service as opposed to maintaining the security service within the structure of the RCMP?


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, generally speaking, as I pointed out in my presentation, I approve of that move. However, as I was at great pains to point out, the timing is wrong because it is impossible to do this with the concurrence of the public when we have in office a Government that just cannot be trusted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I think I heard the Hon. Member say that the RCMP security service has done a pretty good job over the years. I put this question to the Hon. Member as someone who was a Crown Attorney, who has had many friends who belong to the RCMP and who has respected much of the work done in the general force. In view of the barn burning, the access to files of political Parties and the whole list of illegal acts which have taken place over the years, can the Hon. Member really say that the RCMP security service has done a pretty good job over the years? I put it to the Hon. Member that it seems to me that the acts of the RCMP security service have forced the McDonald Commission almost to succeed in destroying the RCMP-


An Hon. Member:: And their political masters.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: As my colleague has said, their political masters were involved in this matter as well. I wonder if the Hon. Member really does stand behind the statement that the security service has done a pretty good job over the years. It seems to me that if what went on in the last 10 years in Canada had occurred in the United States, there would have been a revolution against it. It would have been akin to a Watergate scandal, and yet nothing really happened in Canada. Does the Hon. member still stand behind that statement? If he does, it seems to me to be a pretty shallow analysis.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that in Canada we do not have revolutions, we have royal commissions. It is a much safer way of dealing with things.
Undoubtedly, those things which took place in Quebec, including the barn burning and the surveillance of the Parti Quebecois, were not things that were to be desired. This is where the existing system fell down, and I suspect that it fell down because, in this particular case, undue political direction was given to the security branch of the RCMP. However, 1 still maintain that by and large, over the years, the RCMP has done a reasonable job.
I am not particularly familiar with what goes on in the Province of Quebec, but in my part of the country and other parts of western Canada that I visit from time to time, I very seldom hear complaints from people who have been subjected to abuse by the RCMP security agency. We just do not hear about these things. Apparently they do not happen.
Canada has not been brought to its knees by the activities of subversive agents. That means either that there have been no subversive agents working in Canada or that the RCMP has done a pretty good job and caught them all.
March 9, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question period has expired. 1 would also like to remind Hon. Members that we are entering a new phase of debate during which Hon. Members' speeches will be limited to 10 minutes and there will be no question period, as provided for in our rules.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I only have 10 minutes to make some remarks about this Bill so I will try to be brief.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: That's a good idea.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: 1 have to be brief. I would like to make one comment about the attempt on the part of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) and the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to stop this debate. I think that that is disgusting. We are finally having a debate on one of the most important issues in contemporary Canada, and they want to hustle it off to a committee which they can control and where they can effectively bury the Bill. Indeed, this week the Solicitor General has been running around the House like a rabbit in heat trying to have us shut up and get this Bill into committee.
It may be unpopular to speak on this Bill, but I would remind the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that some of us on this side of the House remember some very unpopular things which were said by our predecessors. J. S. Woodsworth stood in the House and defended Chinese immigration and argued, against the rest of the House, for the equal treatment of Chinese Canadians. One of my predecessors in the riding of Vancouver-Kingsway, Angus Maclnnis, stood up alone in the House against a tidal wave of opinion to defend Japanese Canadians. Grace Maclnnis, a previous Member for Vancouver-Kingsway, stood up and voted against the War Measures Act together with my other colleagues. That took courage and resistance, and those people were proven right in the long run. I think that some of the work the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has been doing regarding this Bill will serve Canada well as we will get a better security service for it.
There are four things wrong with this Bill, Mr. Speaker. First, there is no parliamentary accountability. Second, the group that is supposed to look at the security service is denied access to Cabinet documents, the kind of documents that are really needed in order to examine the service. Third, the powers of the service are too broad. Fourth, the mandate is too vague. That is what is wrong with the Bill, and that is why we must debate the Bill in principle on second reading.
Let me go over those four points briefly, starting with parliamentary accountability. I do not agree with the two previous speakers who said that it is all right to have a bunch of old Privy Councillors, some of whom are perhaps in their dotage, looking at the security service. It will be accountable to some, mainly Liberal, Privy Councillors, but that does not matter. Those Privy Councillors have probably retired from politics, so let us do it in a contemporary way. Let us put accountability where the United States does. Let us put it into the legislature. Let us have a parliamentary committee. That is why we have a Parliament. Parliament does not exist so that
Security Intelligence Service
former Privy Councillors may find jobs. Let us have a parliamentary committee that looks at the security service and really makes it accountable.
Second, we must see that that parliamentary committee has access to the same Cabinet documents to which the security service itself has access. We must deal with the type of access to information that the people who will keep the security service accountable will have.
Third, the powers are too broad. I ask Canadians who are watching these proceedings on television whether we want a security service to open up our first-class mail. Do they think that the danger of subversion in Canada is that bad? I do not think it is, and therefore I do not think a security service should have those broad powers.
Fourth, I think the mandate is too vague. My colleagues have said that this will open up the possibility of looking into legitimate groups, such as church groups, peace groups and so on, or even looking on the left and on the right. The Peter Worthingtons will be looked at just as much as the groups on the left. That is the history of what the security service has been doing in Canada. It is shown in the McDonald Commission. The evidence is there, Mr. Speaker.
The Solicitor General of Canada is a chicken. He has
800,000	files on average Canadians and he is afraid to tear up those files and get rid of them. What is he waiting for? If he had any guts, he would do that. He is a wishy-washy chicken. He has no guts to do that. Here he comes into the House now. He is gutless. He has been running around, but he should have been fired because of this Bill. He should have been fired for the way he brought in this Bill.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: You will get a chance to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Minister rises on a question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished to hear the Hon. Member call me gutless on the grounds that he did. Naturally he is entitled to call me-


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no question of privilege. I have 10 minutes to speak.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -whatever he likes but the fact is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. May I remind the hon. gentlemen that we cannot entertain a point of order on top of a question of privilege. We will hear the question of privilege first.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is no question of privilege.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask that the Hon. Member withdraw the allegation that I am gutless. He knows perfectly that that file destruction is well under way and that

March 9, 1984
Security Intelligence Service
hundreds of thousands of files have already been destroyed. I have reported that in the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I see my file?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Can you read?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Chair is of the opinion that the Hon. Solicitor General has made his point. Certainly the term used is not very polite, but I doubt whether it falls within the realm of unparliamentary language.
May I remind the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that he may well continue his speech but he might try to make it a bit less inflammatory.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, let me just say that the Minister lacks intestinal fortitude.
Where is the proof? The Minister brought in a most flawed Bill. It is amazing that he was not fired because of it. He kept his job by getting Senator Pitfield to bail him out. The Bill is still flawed, and that is what we are trying to point out.
There is no mandate in the Bill that is defined properly. We can still have the point of opening files on Canadians; we can still have the point of looking into peace groups and other groups, and that has been pointed out by my colleagues in the House. There has been no real coming to grips with the crucial difference between dissent and surveillance. Indeed, that is the whole problem.
There are four points, then, Mr. Speaker. There is no parliamentary accountability; there is denial of access to the proper files to have that accountability; the powers are too broad in the Bill; and the mandate is too vague.
I have never seen the question of whether the country really needs a security service properly debated in the House, Mr. Speaker. The world has the FBI, the NKVD and its successor the KGB, and the RCMP security service. What are these groups really doing? I should like to suggest that they do not spend their time in surveillance of criminals and subversives. We have the Criminal Code for that in this country. We have the ordinary services of the police, but we have created these crazy bureaucracies that go out to do nothing but get files on people. That is why the debate is so important today.
I do not speak for my Party now, Mr. Speaker, because the views of this Party are quite clear; the Party is on record as wanting a security service but giving it a defined mandate. I raise the question of why we have security services at all? Is Canada really so insecure? Do we really have all these secrets that we need this kind of agency?
I should like to put something on the record, Mr. Speaker, which I think applies here. I read as follows:
It was a bright cold day in April, and the clocks were striking thirteen. Winston Smith, his chin nuzzled into his breast in an effort to escape the vile wind, slipped quickly through the glass doors of Victory Mansions, though not quickly enough to prevent a swirl of gritty dust from entering along with him.
In the next paragraph this appears:
The flat was seven flights up, and Winston, who was thirty-nine and had a varicose ulcer above his right ankle, went slowly, resting several times on the way. On each landing, opposite the lift-shaft, the poster with the enormous face gazed from the wall. It was one of those pictures which are so contrived that the eyes follow you about when you move. BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING YOU, the caption beneath it ran.
That, of course, is from Orwell's 1984. We are in 1984-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Cheap shot.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not a cheap shot. The whole basis of the debate is how much we want to restrict Big Brother. If we want to make sure that Big Brother is not going to watch us and that we are not going to create that kind of society where we have a "Minister of Love," and so on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Perhaps I could finish, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I want to participate briefly in the debate mainly because of my concern about one aspect of the procedure we are going through. The Bill was introduced first in the Senate as Bill C-157 and it received quite a thorough analysis in Ottawa by a committee of the Senate. The witnesses who appeared were those who could afford to come here and make their presentations.
A Bill to establish a security service has been discussed for 10 or 15 years. There were two royal commissions to study it, and then the Government introduced Bill C-157 in the Senate. That Bill was roundly criticized and partially condemned, and the Government withdrew it. Now it has introduced a revised version, taking into consideration many of the recommendations made in the Senate. The Bill has been modified, changed and vastly improved, but still I think there is room for more improvement.
Since the Bill has the potential of invading Joe Citizen's life in any corner of the country, has the potential to investigate political Parties and political activities, has the potential to look into areas that we would prefer to think were not being looked into, I think it must be considered very carefully and must receive a great deal of support from all Canadians.
I believe that there is no doubt that we need a security service. Every country has a form of service which tries to protect the way of life it has established. We have had one for some years. It has erred and has had problems from time to time, but by and large it has done some good work for us. To win overwhelming support for a security service, whether it be a civilian service or one within the RCMP, I think the committee must travel to various parts of the country and listen to citizens and groups and lobbying organizations which cannot afford to come to Ottawa, to the other Chamber with the red carpet. If we really want to understand average Joe Q citizen's
March 9, 1984

views, then the committee must have the right to travel. The Government has refused that request. It claims that while there is a Liberal leadership race going on, it must have its people in Ottawa because it is afraid it might be defeated in the House. I say to the Government that the committee could travel under certain conditions, such as that there would be an equal number of Members from both sides of the House on the committee. In that way the Government will be able to protect itself.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you agree not to defeat us in votes in the House while the committee is travelling?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am suggesting that if you spoke to the House Leader and made a proposal that an equal number of Hon. Members from both sides who would be away would not vote and you would not be defeated because of that committee travelling, I believe that would be a fair thing to suggest. If Hon. Members opposite want to fold up shop and run around like everyone else, not because of that committee's work but because they do not like running the Government any more, or have found they cannot, then I believe that, yes, they deserve to be defeated. The Hon. Member who has already left the House-I hope he is not going to embark in debate from behind the curtain-believes, I feel, that this is a fair offer or suggestion. If the Government wanted to make sure it was not going to be defeated because of that committee's travelling, it could put forward a proposal to make sure the committee had the right to travel but that the Government itself was protected. I believe that is a fair suggestion. I feel we have to have this committee travel. The Government has refused, and I believe that is a mistake. This is far too important a piece of legislation.
I want to hear from more than the Attorneys General of the various provinces. I want to hear from more than the people who can afford to be in Ottawa, the spokespersons for organized groups which have sufficient funds to be able to send them here. I want to hear from the average person and from some of the groups who would not otherwise be able to make a representations in front of the committee. I do not like cutting off representations from the Canadian public. We are here to serve the public. This Bill has the possibility of intruding into the fabric of Canadian life, into the individual's life and into political life, although I am not saying it will do so. However, in looking at certain of the provisions in the Bill, some of which were accepted recommendations from the Senate, there is no doubt that the security service must walk a very narrow tightrope. It will not be comfortable because it may fall off- we hope not very often. I believe that since this is such a potentially intrusive device into the lives of Canadians individuals and legitimate organizations, we have to hear from any person who has that concern.
I feel it will serve the purposes of the Government as well, because the Government would have a chance to explain the real intent of this Bill and it would receive the support, I believe, of the majority of Canadians. If the Government
Security Intelligence Service
wants the support of Canadians for the Bill, why does it not go out and talk to Canadians and give them an opportunity for input?


Robert Lorne McCuish: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-9 is an Act to establish the Canadian Security Intelligence Service. I am a layman, Mr. Speaker, and the intricacies of this legislation, in great part, escape me, but I have listened with great interest to everything that has been said from this side of the House. I am a bit disappointed that there has not been more debate from the government side. However, I have great confidence in Hon. Members of this Party who will consider this Bill in great detail in committee. Indeed, I hope that the Government will take heed of what they have to say, because I firmly believe that this Bill is long overdue and that if it is a good Bill when it comes out of committee, it will indeed serve Canada well.
Bill C-9 is a culmination of the work of two commissions of inquiry, of the special committee of the Senate, and it follows Bill C-157. The first of the commissions of inquiry was the royal commission into security, which we know as the Mackenzie Commission. The report of this commission was tabled in 1969 and it was left to gather dust. In 1977 another royal commission was appointed. After four long years, the McDonald Commission created a response to occurrences of the 1970s and was, in great part, related to the activities of the FLQ in Quebec. The McDonald Commission reported in 1981, and following its mandate it made specific recommendations with respect to security matters.
The Government, realizing the importance of this matter, took two years to respond. In May of 1983 the Minister supported the first draft of Bill C-157. Bill C-157, as we know, Mr. Speaker, was a disaster. It was a disgrace in drafting. It certainly was not worthy of presentation. However, I do not share that view as far as Bill C-9 is concerned. The Bill deals with national security. I certainly cannot agree with one of the last speakers that national security is not something which we should worry about or that we should defend against in Canada. The Solicitor General, realizing that Bill C-157 was an impoverished attempt at creating a Security Intelligence Service, referred the matter to the chamber of sober second thought. I do believe that certain members of the Senate performed a yeoman's service in pointing out the fallacies of that piece of proposed legislation.
Specific changes recommended by the Senate committee were vast and far too numerous to go through item by item today. In general terms, Mr. Speaker, the committee attempted to rationalize the mandate of the proposed security service. The Senate committee saw the powers of the security service as being carelessly defined, that the powers were broad and they were ambiguous.
In response to the haphazard definition of the security services' powers, the committee attempted to define clearly what "threats to the security of Canada" were. Thus, there was the recommendation to have the words "strictly necessary" added. The mandate was limited from an overly expansive interpretation to a mandate which gave powers only if

March 9, 1984
Animal Traps
"strictly necessary" for the protection of Canada's security. Even in the present Bill there is much protection missing in terms of the tremendous power which any such force will have. Certainly, it is the obligation of this House to consider carefully the legislative proposals which will grant far-reaching powers to the security service; powers, if abused, which will counter all that our political system now stands for. If Canada is to have a security service, it had better define the powers which it will give members of any such force.
Another area of Bill C-157 which the Senate committee attempted to correct can be labelled as accountability. Accountability is a subject which the Government is not well versed in. Whether it be Crown corporations or the proposed security service, the Government seems to regard accountability as a hassle. In the old Bill, ministerial accountability was sadly, but not surprisingly, lacking. The Director of the service, an appointed official, would have prevailed over the Minister. Had Bill C-157 been adopted, Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) would not have been responsible to the elected representatives of the Canadian people for his actions. A lack of accountability of this nature is disturbing in any area of government, but it is reprehensible in an area of such importance.
Naturally, the Senate committee recommended a complete reversal of this lack of accountability. The committee recommended that the service be an "open book" to the Minister, who will consequently have full political responsibility for matters of which he can reasonably be expected to have knowledge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members's Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Agreed.\nOrder discharged and Bill withdrawn.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items listed under Private Members' Business preceding Order No. 107 be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to have the order for the second reading of Bill C-222, an Act to amend the Criminal Code, discharged and the Bill withdrawn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The House has heard the proposal of the Hon. Member. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and Bill withdrawn.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of establishing a committee to study the feasibility of expanding the northern transportation options to include the development of a rail line linking communities in northwest Saskatchewan with the main lines in the rest of the Province.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the reason for placing this on the Order Paper is that-


Jean-Luc Pepin: Slush fund.


Douglas Keith Anguish: I see the former Minster of Transport makes fun of it. He should look more closely at the communities this will affect, where there is in excess of 90 per cent unemployment, and 60 per cent of the people who live there are either of Indian or Metis ancestry.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Your halo is slipping.


Douglas Keith Anguish: The reason for putting this on the Order Paper is to try to come to grips with some of the problems of economic development in northwestern Saskatchewan. Since the days of the early fur trade when French and Scottish traders came through the waterways of northern Saskatchewan, the economic situation in that area has become increasingly worse. Traditionally, most of the people who live in that area relied on hunting, fishing and trapping for their livelihood. Their every day activities were an integral part of providing food and shelter for themselves. As time passed, these people found they could no longer rely on fishing, trapping and hunting to provide the every day necessities and a decent standard of living. We now find ourselves in a situation where almost every community in the area affected by this Bill has in excess of 90 per cent unemployment.
As I said to the former Minister of Transport, it also encompasses an area where 60 per cent or more of the population are Indian or Metis people who have not had the high standard of living other people have throughout Canada. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mrs. Cote) to pay particular attention to what I am proposing, which is to have a committee or group within the Department of Transport look at the socio-economic
March 9, 1984

impact of building a railway in northern Saskatchewan. It would connect communities, such as La Loche, Buffalo Narrows, Beauval, Meadow Lake and south, with the main lines.
I do not know exactly how much this would cost because the Department of Transport does not know what the cost would be. I tried to look into this with the railway companies. However, it would certainly have an impact if the railway were to go ahead and connect those communities I mentioned. In the initial stages it would provide a good number of jobs for people in northern Saskatchewan during the construction phase. A second benefit is that once the line was in place there would be a cheap and economical means of transporting goods in and out of northern Saskatchewan, whether they be manufactured goods coming in or raw materials going out.
I have mentioned that many of the people have traditionally relied on fishing in that part of northern Saskatchewan. However, we find today that commercial fresh water fisheries are almost non-existent in many communities. That is because of the very high transportation costs of getting fish out of places like the Athabasca region and many other areas. By the time fish is taken to the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation plant in Strathcona, in Winnipeg, the transportation costs have not only eaten up the profit, but in some cases there would be a loss by the time the fish is taken to the plant in Winnipeg. I cannot say that I would want a system of branch lines such as is necessary to serve the agricultural communities in Saskatchewan, but at least let us have one main line, with possibly marshalling facilities at La Loche and Buffalo Narrows, so that raw materials from the north could be gathered together and shipped out by cheap and economical means, mainly rail transportation. Right now the air transport costs are prohibitively high, especially in northern Saskatchewan where they use small planes.
Some people might say that the idea is absurd, that there is no need, rationale or precedent for having a railway built in the north. However, I ask those people to examine the other provinces in western Canada. British Columbia has a railway up to the Yukon. Alberta has a railway right into the Northwest Territories. In Saskatchewan the rail line stops around the 52nd or 53rd parallel, at the community of Meadow Lake. That is the northernmost rail line in Saskatchewan. Ontario has a railway which goes right up to Moosonee and Moose Factory on James Bay. Those places are much farther north than the area I speak about in northern Saskatchewan.
The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) mentioned the railway facilities in Manitoba which go up to Churchill, and the grain terminal there. More of our grain from Saskatchewan should be moving through that port than goes out of there right now.
Therefore, if you look at many of the other provinces, especially the larger ones, you will see that they all have railways reaching much farther north, as far as into the Territorial areas, than we do in Saskatchewan.
I think the real need for a railway in that area, Mr. Speaker, is illustrated by the necessity for economic development of the area. As I mentioned, the standard of living has been very low
Transport
in northern Saskatchewan in the past. In fact, until the early 1970s when the Department of Northern Saskatchewan was established, many of the luxuries we take for granted were non-existent in that part of the province. For example, you would find ten or twelve members of a family living in one-room houses. Water and sewer facilities in many of the communities were non-existent. There was no form of recognized municipal government in many of these communities. When the Department of Northern Saskatchewan was established, it had a responsibility as a geographic department. The one department took care of all services in northern Saskatchewan including education, health, transportation, hydroelectric power, etc. These all fell under the umbrella of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan. That department had many difficulties in its formative years. The new Government in Saskatchewan has seen fit to abolish the department. I think that is sad, even though the services of the Department of Northern Saskatchewan were only a little more expensive than delivering programs and services through the line departments located in Regina. In many of those communities today there is modern housing with water and sewer facilities. New schools were built, making it unnecessary for students to leave their home communities to continue their education in high school. There are health clinics in many of the northern communities now.
The infrastructure which people need for a decent standard of living is there, but the economic development is very much lacking. One of the reasons for this is that there is not a form of transportation available to get raw materials out and manufactured materials back in at a reasonable cost. Companies wishing to locate a mine in northern Saskatchewan, or to be involved in another kind of economic venture, cannot do so because the transportation costs are incredibly high. If the railway was there, perhaps the transportation costs would be reduced to such an extent as to give an incentive to companies to develop some of the vast resources contained in northern Saskatchewan.
I hope the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Flis) will take this proposal to the Department of Transport and that it will look at the socio-economic impact of such a project. I would ask them first to consult with the local communities. Instead of consultation with local people taking place in the remote areas of Canada, often orders seems to have been passed down from up high. Many problems can be overcome with local consultation. Local consultation on a program such as this would be very helpful so as to overcome some of the stumbling blocks.
I suspect that a railway in northern Saskatchewan linking the communities I have already mentioned, would be very advantageous. I do not know that for a fact, Mr. Speaker, because the people in northern Saskatchewan do not have the resources to do a socio-economic analysis of what would happen if a railroad were built in the north. This would cost more money and take more resources than I myself or the local people have the ability or time to put together. I believe the

March 9, 1984
Transport
Department of Transport has the mandate and responsibility to consider this as a concept which would work better than what is now in place there to alleviate the economic disparities in that area of Canada. If the Department of Transport would study this proposal and then point out to me and to the people of northwestern Saskatchewan valid reasons why a project like this could not proceed, we would honour that. If it can document reasons why a railway in northwestern Saskatchewan is not possible, we would like to opportunity to refute its arguments.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to present this idea to the Department. I am not playing a political game or trying to force the Department to go ahead with something. I am asking the Department to study the socio-economic impact of building a railway in northwestern Saskatchewan. Give us the opportunity to consider this to determine whether it would be of benefit to the country and, more particularly, to the people of northwestern Saskatchewan, who in many cases are in dire straits and want something to happen. If this will bring about better social and economic conditions, I plead with the Parliamentary Secretary to help us out in this instance.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) for taking advantage of this private Member's Hour and bringing in his motion. However, upon reading the motion that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of establishing a committee to study the feasibility of expanding the northern transportation options to include the development of a rail line linking communities in northwest Saskatchewan with the main lines in the rest of the province, I could not believe the motion in front of us today.
For the last two years, Mr. Speaker, that Hon. Member and that Party did everything in the book to prevent the passage of the Western Grain Transportation Act, Bill C-155. You know as well as I do, Mr. Speaker, the antics they pulled off in the House over the last year in attempting to prevent the passage of Bill C-155. Today the Hon. Member has the gall to bring in this motion asking the Government to set up a committee to improve the railway transportation system in Saskatchewan. What was Bill C-155 all about? Why all the opposition? He now presents a motion asking the Government to set up a committee to give him rail transportation in Saskatchewan. He should have been the first one supporting Bill C-155, the Western Grain Transportation Act. That Act heralded a whole new era in expanding transportation options in the West, which is what he is asking for. We have entered a new era in which the Government is committed to helping western producers, including the western producers from the region he is speaking about, to meet their objectives-


Douglas Keith Anguish: They do not even grow grain up there. You do not know what you are talking about.


Jesse Philip Flis: -of improving grain transportation and getting things from the market back to the farms. He is talking about
bringing in tourism farther north. We heard screams about how these communities will die out one after the other. As the farmers' incomes increase, the economy of Saskatchewan will improve.
I was out in Humboldt-Lake Centre not long ago, opening up the airstrip there. I asked the people there how they had been affected by the recession. They asked, "What recession?". They did not even feel the recession. While that Member and his Party were pulling off their antics, trying to prevent the improvement of the rail transportation system in the West, especially in Saskatchewan, this Government made a commitment and brought in a new era marked by investment in the new railway facilities and equipment to expand freight capacity and provide better service. It is a new era providing first class service to the people in the Hon. Member's province. Did we get any co-operation from him? No, not one ounce of co-operation. It is no wonder that their position in the polls is what it is today. They are completely out of touch with the grass-roots people.
The increased revenues for the producers in Saskatchewan will have a positive effect on the communities in that province. He will discover that the farmers themselves and the people in Saskatchewan will come out with more innovative approaches-


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is something called relevancy of the speeches. I would like to point out that the area I am talking about does not have one kernel of grain. It has nothing to do with the political arguments that the Hon. Member is trying to make. If he will not address the topic, I ask you to call on him to be relevant or not speak at all.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It is the opinion of the Chair that the Hon. Member may not be dealing with all details of the motion, but the motion is quite broad. It is the Chair's opinion that the Hon. Member is at least in the same ballpark.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I asked the page to bring me a map of Saskatchewan prior to my rising to speak. He was kind enough to do so and, interestingly, the page who brought me the map happens to come from Blaine Lake, quite close to the area which the Hon. Member is talking about, near Battleford and a little south of Meadowlake. The Hon. Member's motion deals with a rail line joining the main rail lines. That is exactly what I am getting to. How much more relevant can I get?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: May I remind the Hon. Member that the use of displays in the House is not permitted.


Douglas Keith Anguish: That map doesn't even show the area I am talking about.


Jesse Philip Flis: While the Hon. Member is dreaming of some pie in the sky rail lines, this Government has already acted. I
March 9, 1984

might remind the Hon. Member that Saskatchewan has one of the best networks of highways of any province in Canada. Perhaps the solution to the problem he is trying to solve may not be a rail line but other modes of transportation, which I think he should consider. There are busses which run cheaply. There are air services that the Government provides to outlying communities. If he were to look at a more multimodal approach to helping the constituency in his area, he might get much further than he is today.
For almost a decade the federal and Saskatchewan Governments have co-operated in measures to assist in the development of northern Saskatchewan. We have made substantial progress, particularly in the improved level of community services and transportation. However, with a major reduction in resource development and the possibility that new resources will not be identified in the foreseeable future, both Governments are concerned as to the economic development opportunities which could now be available to the northern communities. To this end, the Government has proposed the development of a memorandum of understanding in northern economic development by mid-1984. I believe this should be of interest to the Hon. Member with respect to his motion. The agreement would essentially identify ways of improving the co-ordination and existing federal and provincial programs in northern Saskatchewan.
A subsidiary agreement is also proposed to support northern economic development. Under this initiative, three priority areas have been identified for possible implementation during 1984-85. One priority area is resource development and exports. This is something the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) stressed in his latest Budget.
Another priority area is strategic economic diversification, where initiatives are intended to develop service opportunities.
The third priority area seeks to improve the participation of native peoples, including residents of northern Saskatchewan, and the opportunities and benefits of economic development.
In keeping with our historic concern and involvement with transportation in the Athabasca region of northwestern Saskatchewan, the federal Government has directed its efforts toward maintaining transportation services as is economically feasible while meeting the immediate needs of the communities. These are the very communities to which the Hon. Member is referring.
This has involved extensive consultation with residents of the region as well as with the Governments of Alberta and Saskatchewan. Two principal options emerged. The first one was the winter road. Each year the Saskatchewan Government, as I mentioned, has been providing a winter road from Cluff Lake to Uranium City, thus linking this part of northern Saskatchewan with the rest of the provinces' highway network. Again I must stress that its highway network is second to none in Canada. The federal Government will be most happy to consider any reasonable, well-defined and well-justified proposal from the Saskatchewan Government. Until then, we understand that the Saskatchewan Government will maintain,
Transport
at least for the current year, a winter road from Cluff Lake to Uranium City.
The other principal option was the marine mode. One consideration for the federal Government was to restructure marine transportation services on the Athabasca system. Everyone will agree that the marine services were of much value in the past. Notwithstanding the fact that with the closing of Uranium City, traffic has reduced considerably, a marine service in some form remains most strategic in meeting the remaining communities' needs.
Based on cost analysis, the Government recommended establishing a marine terminal tug and barge service at Fitzgerald, on the Slave River in Alberta. This meant that the tug and barge service out of Fort McMurray would be discontinued, thus alleviating the need to maintain the dredging program for the Athabasca River. During the ensuring consultation with both the Province of Alberta and Saskatchewan, a general consensus was reached for the federal Government to build a new tug and barge docking facility near Fort MacKay in Alberta, north of Fort McMurray on the Athabasca River. With the choice of Fort MacKay as the new barge terminal, a six-year program of reducing dredging by Public Works Canada will go into effect between Fort MacKay and Lake Athabasca. The number of navigational aids will be reduced on the Athabasca River to conform to the decrease in marine activity.
This continuation of the federal Government's dredging and navigational aids program will significantly reduce the potential negative cost impact on most area residents. The tug and barge service out of Fort McMurray will be terminated, along with the dredging on the Athabasca River between Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay.
As announced on February 28, the federal Government believes that with the new marine transportation service out of Fort MacKay and with the provincial Government's support, the transportation cost to consignees will be minimized and regional economic development will be encouraged. Any savings to Transport Canada as a result of these changes will be available to develop other regional transportation facilities in the Athabasca system.
Traditionally, the federal Government has played a very active role in the development of rail transportation services in Canada's northern communities. However, the geographic location, sparse settlement and great distances between populated areas in northwestern Saskatchewan make this region a high cost area to service, based essentially on community needs. This precludes, at least at this time, the development of further rail links with the rest of the Saskatchewan rail system until the resource potential is clearly identified to justify such an undertaking. We do not need a committee to determine that. That has already been well established.
Of course, it would be possible to construct a railway from the end of the existing railway network to Athabasca or that vicinity. This line, approximately 600 kilometres long, would be extremely expensive to construct. At approximately $625,000 per kilometre, I think we must ask ourselves if the federal

March 9, 1984
Transport
Government and the people of Saskatchewan can afford those types of costs. It should not be forgotten that it would also be necessary to upgrade the existing railway network from Meadow Lake to Prince Albert. This is a distance of 166 kilometres at a cost of $300,000 per kilometre. Such a line would be justified only if there were proven mineral deposits, such as those at Pine Point, Alberta, or in the Flin Flon region. Without proven deposits and a market for these products, it would be pointless to consider further extension to the continental railway network, which is what the motion is requesting.
We must remember, Mr. Speaker, that the provinces also play an important role in providing intra-provincial or local transportation services to their residents. Needless to say, the federal Government wishes to see the residents of these northern Saskatchewan communities receive the most efficient and convenient transportation service possible.
I would like to sum up by pointing out that a great deal of effort has been expended and much more will be required to ensure that transportation services in northern areas are sufficient to meet the demands of those requiring them. The provision of rail services, like any other mode of transport, has to be considered in the light of freight and passenger demand, or the number of industries or other facilities that would benefit.
The Hon. Member did not outline to this Chamber whether he was more interested in passenger service for those northern outlying regions, or whether he was more interested in freight service. Again I would remind the Hon. Member that next time there is an important Bill in front of this House, such as Bill C-155, he should think very carefully about the constituents he represents before he tries to pull the kind of stunt he did in trying to block Bill C-155.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could I have unanimous consent of the House to put a couple of points on the record and to ask a couple of brief questions concerning the barging system? I have just received notice from the Minister of Transport, (Mr. Axworthy) about the barging system from Fort McKay. I appreciate that. I would like to ask a couple of questions of the Parliamentary Secretary, if I could.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Posing questions at this period in our proceedings is not proper. However, if the Hon. Member is asking for unanimous consent, that can be done. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The Hon. Member does not have unanimous consent. I recognize the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, just listen to that applause. This will be a very popular presentation, I can see that.
It is a great pleasure to support my good friend, the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) this afternoon. He did not support me on occasions when I have been trying to get transportation links established in my area, but I am magnanimous and I have no hesitation at all in supporting him in his bid to get better transportation services for the people he represents in northwestern Saskatchewan. This is certainly a change in viewpoint for the NDP. The New Democratic Party has never before seemed to have been concerned with northern transportation issues. Where was the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake when Tom Berger was running up and down the Mackenzie Valley trying to do his thing, doing his evil deeds?


Douglas Keith Anguish: I was in high school.


Dave Nickerson: -the pipeline that should have been built down the Mackenzie Valley, the part of the country I have the honour to represent, would have done the same thing for us there. It would have increased economic development. It would have provided jobs, and it would have helped the same type of population that he has in his area as would his proposed rail line in Saskatchewan. However, at the time the NDP would not give support to that proposal, excellent as it was. Tom Berger and his accomplices were going up and down the Mackenzie Valley trying to garner votes for the NDP. They were telling people they did not want economic development, they did not need transportation, they should live in the bush and in tents, they should set traps for a living and set nets and they were not going to be part of modern Canada. That is what the NDP was saying just a few years ago.
I am very pleased to see that the NDP members are now having a change of heart, at least the more advanced NDP members from Saskatchewan. Maybe the B.C. NDP is still way back in the 19th century where it always was.
I am going to support the Hon. Member, but I am also going to make an observation. I was in Saskatchewan not that long ago. Saskatchewan had an NDP Government then. It had an NDP Government for eons before that. That is what I was told. Why did the NDP Government of Saskatchewan, like British Columbia that has a provincial railway going to the north, like Alberta that developed the Alberta Resources Railway and like the Province of Ontario which has a railway going to the Hudson Bay area, not take the slightest bit of interest in transportation routes in the north of that province during the many years it was in office? That NDP Government shared in part of the Berger-NDP-B.C. mentality which did not want to do anything and did not care whether or not the people living in those areas starved to death. Anyway, as I have said I am very pleased there has been a change of heart.
I think it is an excellent idea to encourage transportation links such as proposed by the Hon. Member. In looking at the map of Saskatchewan and the adjoining part of the Province of Alberta, it would appear to me that there is a natural rail link
March 9, 1984

transportation route-a natural corridor-which links the existing railway at Meadow Lake to the existing railway at Waterways, Alberta. This line could go through, as the Hon. Member suggests, La Loche and Buffalo Narrows. It would not be that long or that expensive a line. It is not like building a line to Athabasca or to some place like that. But it would undoubtedly have a greatly beneficial effect on the people who live within that natural corridor route.
Like the Hon. Member, I would like to see a permanent transportation link into Cree Lake, and hopefully at some time into Lake Athabasca-maybe connecting Cree Lake up to Lake Athabasca. I would certainly like to see that happen, although maybe that will be a few years down the road.
Perhaps the existing rail link at Fort McMurray could be extended into Lake Athabasca. That might, of course, be on the Alberta side at the border, and my good friend would obviously like to see it on the Saskatchewan side of the border. However, if that were to take place, it would benefit the Lake Athabasca communities, such as Uranium City, Stony Rapids, and Fond du Lac. It would seem to me that the secret of being able to build a railway and make it operate profitably without too much cost to the taxpayer in the form of subsidization would be to have a sufficient volume of goods to carry on that railway. One needs lots of bulk cargo, such as coal or grain, or perhaps cargo freight with a little higher value, thus allowing one to charge higher freight rates. You need to have a good customer at the end of the line in order to justify being able to build it.
There are two good examples of this that spring to mind. The first is the railway that was built in the 1950s to connect Grimshaw, Alberta, with the lead-zinc deposits at Pine Point, Northwest Territories. That line could not have been financed had we not the mine at Pine Point that was a paying customer. But because that line was built, primarily to service the mine, it has also been extremely useful to farmers in northern Alberta and has encouraged the development of agriculture in the High Level area in the northern part of that province. It has been beneficial to the people in northern Alberta and in the southern Mackenzie Valley by way of general freight.
A similar situation exists in Manitoba where the railway was built into Lynn Lake to service the mines there and the people along the route. If a government is interested in benefiting the people by the construction of a railway in places like northern Saskatchewan, it should be encouraging the development of mineral resources, because grain cannot be grown there and there is not much chance of discovering oil, as I understand it, in the pre-Cambrian areas of northern Saskatchewan. It should really be looking for mineral deposits. Once again we come up against what hitherto has been the NDP policy of not encouraging mineral development. In fact, it does everything possible to discourage mineral development. This has been particularly true in northern Saskatchewan where they are mainly looking for uranium. The NDP more than anyone else has been against the nuclear industry in
Transport
Canada and the mining of uranium. It is slitting its own throat, so to speak. It goes against anything which will justify the construction of a railway. I am completely unable to undertand that.
However, with the election of an enlightened Government in the Province of Saskatchewan, that Party now appears to be pursuing a policy designed to promote resource development- oil and potash in the south and base metals in the north. What we need in northern Saskatchewan to develop rail transportation links is a finding of base metal, not one of uranium which is a high-valued commodity that can be flown out and dealt with in relatively small quantities. We would really like to have a base metal mine there. Then they would more or less have to put a railway into that area to ship out the finished concentrate.
I would like to comment upon the remarks of the former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether he is in the House now. It is difficult to see him because he sits at the back. He used to be about two rows from the front, but now they have recognized his true worth on that side and have put him at the back where we can hardly see him.


Jean-Jacques Blais: We have given him the same seat as the one you occupy.


Dave Nickerson: He came up with some good ideas. He said that very often it is not justifiable to build a railway and that the same amount of money can be used to build many more roads. The Saskatchewan Government should be-and it is doing it to a certain extent-engaging in road construction to tie all these outlying communities into the mainstream of Saskatchewan life. He also looked at the wider interprovincial perspective, which I would like to do for a while. I was pleased with his announcement that a barge service was to be put in at Fort McKay. Originally it went from Fort McMurray, but now it will go from Fort McKay becuase the uranium mine at Uranium City has been closed down and it does not justify dredging the Athabasca River between Fort McMurray and Fort McKay. The original idea of NTCL and the Department of Transport was to haul freight going to Lake Athabasca all the way up to Hay River and all the way back down to Fort Smith, put it on a barge at Fort Fitzgerald and then take it into there. That was absolutely crazy, although it would have benefited my constituency to a certain extent. It was much more logical to go the Fort McKay route. I am pleased to see that we will have continued navigation on the Athabasca River for some time to come.
The Fort Fitzgerald alternative might not have been quite as crazy had the road about which there has been talk for many years been completed between Fort Vermilion, Alberta and Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. This would cut off many hundreds of miles into Fort Smith and hooking on to the Slave River waterway which gives access to both Lake Athabasca and Great Slave Lake. Eventually, in the years to come, I look forward to the construction of a major road network in that area. I would dearly like to see as the first step the completion

March 9, 1984
Transport
of a road through Wood Buffalo National Park linking Fort Vermilion to Fort Smith. However, this should go hand in hand with the construction of a road from Fort McMurray up to Fort Chipewyan, giving access to Fake Athabasca, and on to Fort Smith in the Northwest Territories. This is a road for which people in northern Alberta and in southern Northwest Territories have been pushing for many years. Each year they have a snowmobile parade for several hundreds of miles from Fort McMurray to Fort Smith to publicize the necessity of this road. Were this to be completed, it would benefit Alberta, Northwest Territories, the Province of Saskatchewan and the people living in northern Saskatchewan around the fringes of Lake Athabasca.
This is what I wanted to bring to the attention of the House this afternoon. I congratulate the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for bringing forward such an interesting subject. I assure him that he has my complete support for his proposals.


Mrs. Eva Cote (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have had the honour of rising in the House to speak in the capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, and I wish to take this opportunity to thank the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for letting me continue my work as a Member of Parliament in an area that is of great interest to me. In fact, economic development in the riding I represent in the House is very much dependent on transportation. Before speaking to the motion before the House today-the motion moved by the Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish)-I would like to say a few words about the exceptional work done by my predecessor, the Member for Park-dale-High Park (Mr. Flis), who has just commented on the motion. You will understand I certainly cannot share the views expressed by my colleague in the Official Opposition, the Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson), who ought to know, even if his party did not stay in power long enough for him to find out, that-I am thinking of his comments regarding the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park-Parliamentary Secretaries are appointed for a specific period. This may be one or two years, but the fact that one is no longer a Parliamentary Secretary certainly does not constitute a demotion, and at this point I wish to pay tribute to the work done by my predecessor, the Member for Parkdale-High Park, to whom I offer my sincere thanks, on behalf of all my colleagues.
To get back to the motion before the House today, which concerns the establishment of a Committee to study the feasibility of present or future options for railway transportation in northern Saskatchewan, I would point out that transportation links for isolated regions in Canada certainly deserve the attention of the Government.
In fact, we are focussing special attention, not only on developing Canada's large urban centres, but also on putting an end to the isolation of rural regions and Canada's North. The Hon. Member's motion is therefore entirely appropriate.
However, I feel there is a case for putting the issue of transportation in northern Saskatchewan within a broader context, in order to provide a general picture of the transportation services offered in northern regions in the Prairie Provinces, and of the options that could be considered for further improving the quality of service offered to users and, consequently, to the taxpayer.
In keeping with the terms of its mandate, Transport Canada has to make sure that every region of the country is serviced by a passenger and freight transport network that is dependable and adequate and which, above all, fills the needs of the population. But there is more to it than that. Mindful of the objectives set by the Canadian Government, Transport Canada must seek in every possible way to get closer co-operation from the other Government levels-the Government of Saskatchewan in this case.
Such co-operation is not expected only from the public sector, Mr. Speaker, because the federal Government seeks the support of the private sector which has a leading role to play in any endeavour undertaken to bolster the economy of Canada.
Now I should like to say a few words about the services of the Northern Transportation Company which were operational until last year in the Lake Athabasca region. Considering the losses reported by that Crown corporation in 1982- $800,000-no one could reasonably expect that corporation to continue to provide services when tonnage-and income-kept going down year in and year out. Still, the Government will certainly continue to provide services to that region and its residents.
Under a freight transport network restructuration program, the Canadian Government will soon begin the construction of a new wharf for tug boats and barges at Fort McKay and maintain its dredging and navigational aids maintenance services.
In the statement he made last February 28, the Minister of Transport made it quite clear that, once the new tug boat and barge service is operational, with the support of the Saskatchewan Government, the cost of transportation to the cosignatories would be reduced and the local economy would be given a strong boost.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I am happy to remind the Hon. Member that Transport Canada, the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta and the communities concerned along the Athabaska system have decided to have consultations in this regard. These consultations are now under way, as is the restructuring program. In other words, the private sector will have a most important role to play in the near future to maintain the flow of supplies along the Athabaska road.
I was saying earlier that the transportation services in Northern Saskatchewan should extend beyond the borders of the region. From a geopolitical point of view, we see that the northern part of the Prairie Provinces is provided with a transportation network which dates back to 1929 when the Churchill line was built in Manitoba. This line was later
March 9, 1984

expanded with the Lynn Lake, Flin Flon and Osborne Lake branches.
In Alberta, the construction of the railroad owned by the Northern Alberta Railways and operating between Edmonton and Waterways did put an end to the isolation of the region. While this line is located in Alberta, the Northern Transportation Company Limited has during the last forty years provided the area with a barge and tug service in summer from Waterways, that is from Fort McMurray and Fort MacKay, to the communities around Lake Athabaska.
While the federal Government readily appreciates the Hon. Member's desire to have railway branches extend further North from Northern Saskatchewan, the profitability of such costly projects must first be established.
The Hon. Member belongs to a party which favours job creation, for which I congratulate him, the extension of social services and the expansion of our social network. This Government agrees with some of these principles, but it is obvious that, when he suggests investing considerable amounts, for instance in the building of questionable profitability, the Hon. Member's suggestion flies in the face of his own principles.
On the other hand, the Saskatchewan Government has not been idle, far from it! Just like the federal Government, it has a most important role to play in the economic development of the northern part of its province. For instance, to mention just a few of the most positive aspects of its transportation policy in this area, may I indicate that it is subsidizing this year to the tune of some $300,000 transportation by air of perishable goods to communities without year round access roads.
The Saskatchewan government has also maintained for the past several years in the Uranium City area a 190-kilometer long winter road at a cost of $400,000 per year.
If the Saskatchewan government were to make other proposals to its federal counterpart for the improvement of the road system in that area of the province, I am sure that my colleague, the Canadian Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) would favourably receive this kind of representations which are quite consistent with his policy of opening up the northern and rural areas towards the larger industrial and demographic centres.
As a matter of fact, both levels of government are meeting regularly to consider whatever action must be taken to develop the economic potential of Northern Saskatchewan; this spirit of co-operation, I am pleased to report, has already resulted in a number of successes, including an increased level of services and transport to the communities. In order to reduce the
Transport
impact of the closing of mining operations and the reduction in services, both governments are considering the possibility of signing a memorandum of agreement concerning the economic development of Northern Saskatchewan in mid-1984. It would identify the means to increase and improve federal and provincial programs in that area.
I would like to come back for a moment to the matter of extending the railway system to the north of the province, as suggested by my colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. The Canadian Government has never hesitated, when prompted by economic considerations, to promote the construction of rail lines. The best examples are the new Western Grain Transportation Act, which will enable the two major railways to invest some 16.5 billion in the economy over the next ten years. Those funds will be used not only to improve Canadian exports more or less substantially but also to create thousands of jobs in the primary and manufacturing sectors. Another example of the Canadian Government's involvement in railway transportation is the studies by the Transport Canada's Centre for Transport Development in support of studies for the construction of the new British Columbia Railway's line from Anzac, near Prince George, to Tumbler Ridge's coal basins.
Those two examples among others show the Canadian Government's determination to support, where needed, projects for the construction and restructuring of our railway system. However, Mr. Speaker, a rail line from Meadow Lake to Lake Athabasca would cost a minimum of $625,000 per kilometre, not including the improvements needed to the line section between Prince Albert and Meadow Lake, which would involve $300,000 per kilometre.
Such investments can only be warranted where important mineral deposits are to be found in the area served by the line. Surely, the Hon. Member will admit that committing that kind of money to a line such as he is advocating would ignore basic economic principles. I would like, however, to reassure the Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order, this House stands adjourned until Monday, March 12, 1984, at eleven o'clock a.m.
At 5:00 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Monday, March 12, 1984