1974-04-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development in both official languages- Mr. Cyr.

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration in both official languages-Mr. Stollery.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 60 I request you to designate an order of the day for consideration on April 8 of the notice of ways and means motion with respect to the Customs Tariff tabled on Friday, March 1 1974.


PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF CANADIAN FIGURE SKATING CHAMPIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I draw the attention of the House to the presence in your gallery of the current Canadian figureskating champions, Toller Cranston of Toronto and Lynn Nightingale of Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ARTS
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of deep concern, namely, the announcement of the passing of Mr. A. Y. Jackson, a resident of York-Simcoe and the last member of the renowned Group of Seven, which has brought to a close an era of unique artistic and cultural history in Canada. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this House express its condolences and deep regrets to his family on behalf of all Canadians for this great loss.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent; therefore the motion is carried.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43. In view of the commitment made by both the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in October, 1972, to introduce legislation to double the federal share of the railway grade crossing fund to a maximum of $1 million per crossing, and in view of the fact that many municipalities-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member to remind him, as I remind hon. members from time to time, that motions under Standing Order 43 should not include a recital of facts. The hon. member should indicate as quickly as possible what his motion is.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will come to the motion. In view of the fact that many municipalities have failed to complete their programs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Nelson):
That this legislation be forthwith placed on the order paper and that party leaders seek unanimous consent to passage at all stages without debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?

April 5, 1974
Railway Grade Crossing Fund


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put.


FINANCIAL MEASURES TO ASSIST CONSTRUCTION OF PIPELINES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Older 43 to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that it is important to adopt development measures in order to define a policy regarding pipeline construction throughout Canada as well as the financial aspect of this project, I move, seconded by the hon. Member for Charlevoix (Mr. Caouette):
That the House consider the possibility of defining precisely the necessary and essential policies regarding financing, investments, and the political as well as private steps to be taken in order to complete these extensive projects related to energy development and transport in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.
[DOT] (mo)


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the text of the Canadian note of March 25, 1974, addressed to the United States Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, concerning tanker traffic in Puget Sound.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, entitled "An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

['Orders of the day.']
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I had intended to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I could yield to the hon. member for Regina East.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina East.


Mr. Balfour:: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. I see him behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Come out!


An hon. Member:: He is not there.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South.


Mr. Lewis:: In the absence of both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and-


An hon. Member:: Here is the Minister of Supply and Services.


David Lewis: Perhaps Your Honour would like to return to the hon. member for Regina East.


Mr. Speaker:: It might be more orderly to proceed in that wav. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina East.



James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Will the minister confirm or deny that most, if not all, of the Roumanian and Caribbean oil stocks must be re-refined if they are to be useful and, if so, what will be the cost?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this is a purely technical question that concerns the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA AND CARIBBEAN-INQUIRY AS TO ATTEMPTS TO SELL
James Balfour: Is it correct that the Department of Supply and Services is attempting to resell
April 5, 1974

these oil stocks and, if so, what is the best offer it has received?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not very well informed. I said repeatedly in committee and before this House that we were going to use the oil immediately in federal buildings in eastern Canada. I think it is clear enough.


James Balfour: Perhaps the minister did not hear my question. It was simply this: Has the hon. gentleman's department attempted to resell these oil stocks and, if so, what was the best offer received? Does the minister deny that this has taken place?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my words have been misinterpreted, but I think I clearly said that we were going to use this oil to heat federal buildings.


James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister can give a simple yes or no answer to the question.


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA-REASON FOR PURCHASE
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. Why did Shell International insist that in order to purchase the Caribbean oil the minister must accept five million gallons of Roumanian oil? May I ask the minister whether the reason was that, in spite of the fact there was a world shortage, Shell International could not get rid of that oil at the exorbitant price they were asking until they found the two gold dust twins to act as suckers?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, in the first place, we are not dealing with Shell Canada Limited but with Canadian Fuel Marketers Limited. During our negotiations, that company wanted us to buy all the Roumanian oil but we finally obtained a two thirds reduction of that purchase. Therefore, we bought only a third of that oil. We have also reduced their commission from 2 to l'A per cent and we entirely eliminated the commission on the Carribbean oil. Under the circumstances, I believe it was the best bargaining that we could make.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that when that oil was purchased, no official from my department was a member of the technical committee established by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF OPTION AND CONTRACT TO BUY ROUMANIAN OIL
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Canadian Fuel
Oral Questions
Marketers is owned by Shell International, may I ask the minister whether he is prepared to place on the table of the House a copy of the option which Canadian Fuel Marketers had with the Roumanian export trading company and also a copy of the contract which the minister entered into relative to this transaction?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, with the consent of the House, I would be pleased to table immediately the contract concluded between the federal government and Canadian Fuel Marketers Limited.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed.


HEATING OIL PURCHASED BY GOVERNMENT FROM ROUMANIA-REASON FOR PURCHASE
Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the fact the explanation given by the minister to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands regarding the Roumanian purchase is at odds with the explanation given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and nis officials yesterday in the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, can the minister explain the basis for this difference, and is he assured that the explanation that he has given is correct and the explanation given by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is incorrect?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not know at all. I have not read my colleague's comments, but I think that what I said surely sticks to the facts.


PRICE AGREED ON BY FIRST MINISTERS FOR CANADIAN CRUDE OIL-ADDITIONAL INCREASE
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I should like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister relating to the story that the average price of $6.50, which the House was informed was agreed upon by the meeting of first ministers, may not be the average price but that some of the oil may have to be paid for at a higher price. Can the Acting Prime Minister inform the House exactly what agreement was reached at that meeting? No doubt the cabinet was informed by the Prime Minister as to exactly what happened.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the price that was agreed upon during the discussions at the meeting of first ministers was $6.50 at the wellhead.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, even though the Secretary of State for External Affairs is not as expert in the field as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, I am sure he knows there are various prices for various ranges of oil. May I ask him what ranges of oil the $6.50 was intended to

April 5, 1974
Oral Questions
cover? Was it merely conventional oil or was it to be an average price for all oil bought domestically from Alberta?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the only price that was discussed during the meeting of the first ministers was a wellhead price of $6.50 plus transportation costs. There was no discussion during the first minister's meeting of any differentials.


David Lewis: In view of what appears to be the fact, that the average price of a barrel of oil at the wellhead during the frozen price period was about $3.85 rather than $4, taking into account the lower price for conventional and the higher price for unconventional, can we have an assurance from the government that it will not agree to any further increase per barrel at the wellhead and that $6.50 is to be the average price for all oil shipped out of the producing provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, after the meetings were concluded the province of Alberta decided unilaterally that there should be some small increases for certain special kinds of oil. This was not discussed during the first ministers' meeting. The average increase in price is so small, however, that the government is not disposed to question this action of the government of Alberta.


David Lewis: Do I gather from the Acting Prime Minister that a decision has already been made for increased prices for certain types of oil, or is this still a matter of discussion between the federal government and the Alberta government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is not an issue that we think would justify the reassembly of the first ministers to discuss this question. Basically, agreement was reached at $6.50. The province of Alberta has, as I have said, unilaterally decided to allow certain premiums for certain special types of oil. This was not discussed with any of the prime ministers, including the Prime Minister of Canada, at that time. I repeat what I have said, that in comparison, of course, with the $10.50 external price, this is a very small margin and we are not disposed to fight with the province of Alberta over such a small amount.


SETTING OF PRICE FOR OIL PRODUCED FROM TAR SANDS OR EXTRACTED FROM NATURAL GAS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister for the purpose of clarification. What is the position, specifically, with reference to synthetic crude produced from the tar sands and oil extracted from natural gas? Is it the position of the government that the prices for such oil will be set by the provincial government of Alberta without any further suggestions from the federal government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the province of Alberta has issued a price list which does include some premiums of this kind. This is a decision that is, of course, within the right of the province of Alberta. The figures are so close and involve such

relatively small amounts that, as I have said, we are not disposed to make it a great issue.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.
In view of the expected increase in the cost of milk early this summer, which will bring its retail cost up to 43 cents a quart, can the minister say whether the cabinet is studying the possibility of increasing the 5-cent a quart subsidy that already applies?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we are not considering this question at the present time.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Can the minister say whether the cabinet is now studying the possibility of granting a milk subsidy, not to the producers or distributors, but to the consumers?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the subsidy that the Canadian government has paid, which is very substantial and is helping keep down the price of milk, does go to the producer.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary.
Can the minister say whether the cabinet has looked into the possibility of granting a compensated discount on food retail costs?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of this representation.


FEDERAL MILK SUBSIDY-APPLICATION TO YUKON AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for either the Minister of Agriculture or his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the milk subsidy of the federal government is, I understand, now applicable to all ten provinces, when is the government going to apply that subsidy to the remainder of Canadians living above the sixtieth parallel?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure if the hon. member means the five cents a quart subsidy.


Erik Nielsen: That is right.
April 5, 1974


Eugene Whelan: I was not aware they were not getting the advantage of that in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. 1 am given to understand that most of their milk supply is shipped in, that the five cents subsidy is included, and that milk would be five cents a quart higher there if it were not. I understand this has been taken into consideration because most of the milk now comes from outside the area.


Erik Nielsen: Would the Minister of Agriculture consult with his colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in order to assure northern Canadians that they are getting the benefit of that subsidy?


AIRPORTS
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport with regard to Vancouver international airport which is closed down this morning because of the withdrawal of the services of the firefighters. In view of the fact the Department of Labour has been ordered not to touch this situation, and in view of the fact the President of the Treasury Board refuses to negotiate, can the minister advise the House what action he plans to take in respect of the fireman at Vancouver international airport to make sure they go back to work so that the Vancouver international airport will be reopened?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sorry situation. I think the hon. member should have given the whole picture. We are in communication with the firefighters and Treasury Board is in communication with the firefighters. Even the Public Service Alliance has some problems in communicating with its own members. The firefighters refuse to follow the route they have accepted-arbitration. This is the whole situation. I do not put blame on anybody, but do not try to exploit the situation in that way. We are doing all we can to open the airport.


John Douglas Reynolds: Is it not a fact that negotiations broke off last night at midnight and that the firefighters cannot get anywhere with this government and that you just refuse to talk to them?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only fact that is true is that the firefighters at Vancouver are bound to go to arbitration when they have a grievance. They are bound by the law. This is the route they have chosen and they have decided to withdraw from this route and have notified that they are withdrawing from work this morning. These are the facts. Notwithstanding that, we are trying to see how we can solve the problem.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


PUBLICATION OF BROCHURE BY CANADIAN CULTURAL CENTRE IN PARIS WITH MAP INDICATING THAT LABRADOR IS PART OF QUEBEC
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have given him notice. It concerns a brochure published under the direction of the Canadian cultural centre in Paris, which has been widely circulated in certain European countries and in which there is a deliberate and offensive misrepresentation of Canadian political boundaries affecting eastern Canada in that the territory of Labrador is shown in the brochure as belonging to Quebec when it in fact belongs to Newfoundland. Can the minister explain to the House how this happened and what steps he has taken to withdraw this brochure?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. gentleman. This is a most inaccurate and most offensive change in the boundaries of Canada. I have ordered that the map be withdrawn.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary may I ask the Solicitor General to explain to the House how it is possible for a Canadian citizen born in the province of Newfoundland to be disqualified, in this our twenty-fifth anniversary year as a province of Canada, by one of his officials on the basis of citizenship in respect of employment with the federal government?


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that question is not supplementary to the first question. It may be related. However, the question has been asked and the minister may reply.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I just learned about this case a few minutes ago from the hon. member and I will be pleased to find out. I must agree with him. I do not know how they can disqualify the person either.


AIRPORTS
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact there have been only eight men on duty at a given time responsible for operating the firefighting equipment at the Vancouver airport, thus leaving no one actually to carry on the removal of passengers, I would ask

April 5, 1974
Oral Questions
the minister if this is not one of the reasons they walked out and what he is going to do about it?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker. If the House wants me to discuss the problem, I can do it.


An hon. Member:: Just keep the airport open.


Jean Marchand: Just bring back the firefighters? Why don't you do that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it arises from reports that retail beef prices, particularly those of the formerly least expensive cuts of beef, have risen to an alarmingly high level. Is the minister satisfied that the increase in the prices of these so-called cheap cuts of beef is justified, and is he planning any discussions with the packers to see whether this trend can be reversed?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think that what we need is the kind of definitive information that I expect will be coming from the Food Prices Review Board study of beef price margins very shortly. It is on the basis of that that we will decide what further action is necessary.


Terrence Wyly Grier: In view of the minister's reliance on the Food Prices Review Board for statistical information on the movement of food prices, I should like to ask him whether consideration is being given to altering the instructions to that board to ensure that their reports on the movement of food prices are issued more frequently than once every three months-say once a week.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is my understanding of their present terms of reference that, in addition to the quarterly reports on trends in food prices, the most recent of which was issued on March 22 and which indicated on the basis of information currently available to them that consumer prices for beef seemed to be going downward, the board has the authority to issue reports as frequently as it sees fit on any subject pertaining to food prices.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and he is very familiar with the

subject matter. We have discussed it in the House and outside it. It concerns the disastrous lay-offs of employees at the Sydney plant of General Instrument Corporation which have reduced the number of employees from approximately 1,000 to less than 400, and the meetings that were held by officials of his department, Industrial Estates Limited and General Instrument Corporation in Boston. Has he any progress report or anything to report with regard to doing something to correct these disastrous lay-offs and have people rehired?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I can report any major progress. There have been discussions with both the parent corporation and the corporation mentioned by the hon. member. The reason for the lay-offs, as I understand it, is twofold: first, the company has suffered multimillion dollar losses in recent years and, second, the United States automobile market is in a depressed state. My department has been meeting with officials with respect to seeing whether GAAP, the General Adjustment Assistance Program, might be of use to the company in these circumstances.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Would the minister have his officials investigate this very serious situation and ascertain whether he as Minister of Regional Economic Expansion can do something in the area to develop that region?


Alastair William Gillespie: We are most concerned about this situation and we will do everything we can to assist the company to become viable so that those on lay-off can be returned to their jobs.


Robert Muir: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-*


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary and will then return to the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore who I believe has a supplementary to his previous question and supplementary.


Robert Muir: I thank the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for his further interest but my question was directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since he is in charge of the very specific problem of regional development and as the work force of the company has been reduced disastrously, what is the minister prepared to do to develop the region that is affected by this lay-off?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I have already been advised and have been in touch with officials of the province and also officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to the viability of the existing operation. As my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has said, in so far as alternative forms of employment or alternative utilization of the plant are concerned, we will be happy to look into that if it is determined that something along those lines might be possible.
April 5, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore, but we are coming closer and closer to the end of the question period. I would hope we could reduce the number of supplementaries.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary arises from the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I should like to ask him whether consideration is being given by his department to altering the terms of reference of the Food Prices Review Board to instruct it to produce regular weekly or bi-weekly retail food price studies?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Any change in the terms of reference would be up to the government as a whole because they are created by order in council under the Inquiries Act. This is a matter that certainly could be considered. However, I should again say that it is my impression of the terms of reference that they are sufficiently broad to allow the board to carry on this type of activity at present at the pace suggested by the hon. member.


TRANSPORT
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the concern we have had since late last summer regarding the establishment of a permanent means of transportation or continuity of the ferry service between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, and the answer by the minister's parliamentary secretary last night indicating that as a partial solution there has been a separation of the east coast marine and ferry services. Can the minister indicate whether in that separation some guarantee has been received from the director or from the various participating labour unions with respect to continuity of service during any kind of national or regional industrial dispute, which is really the crux of the matter?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said not many months ago in the House, I believe, that I was going to try to establish contact with the unions to see how we could solve this problem. It is normal that I proceed through the Department of Labour which is the department that deals with such problems. I know that some meetings are going to take place on the matter of continuity of service, but there is also the problem of the acquired rights of these workers and we will want to see what will become of those rights before we make any move. We are in the process of trying to solve this problem on a voluntary basis with the unions.
Oral Questions


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Could the minister indicate whether either he or the Minister of Labour has advanced any specific alternatives to the unions involved that they are now considering in order that the problem can be resolved, because within a few months we may be faced with another difficult time arising from labour problems on the railways?


Jean Marchand: I regret that the Minister of Labour is not in the House. I would like to have a report on what has been going on recently, but at the beginning of next week perhaps I can complete a report here in the House.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of the fact that an agreement was reached at a federal-provincial conference to ensure a most reasonable price of $6.50 a barrel to the multinational oil producers, does the minister intend to convene the provincial ministers of agriculture to set up a price ensuring Quebec milk producers reasonable profits comparable to those granted the oil industry?
M0)


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed stabilizing the total agricultural industry with the provincial ministers of agriculture. Every one of them agrees with the principle involved, as does every premier also. We will be bringing in legislation in the not too distant future.


FORTHCOMING LEGISLATION RESPECTING WORLD FOOTBALL LEAGUE-EFFECT OF PROVISIONS OF COMPETITION BILL
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the imminent legislation proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the World Football League-incidentally I am happy that my ideas for Canadianizing football in Canada are being considered-and in view of existing government policy as outlined by the minister's own department in the competition bill regarding the outlawing of monopolistic practices in Canada in order to stimulate free enterprise and competition, can the minister advise the House whether this government policy will be seriously considered in the forthcoming legislation, or does the minister intend to try to amend Bill C-7 some-

April 5, 1974
Oral Questions
what so as not to have further obvious contradictions within the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will allow the minister to reply to the question briefly, but the hon. member knows that a question asked in those terms is irregular. Hon. members should be able to ask questions without making arguments or speeches.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the ultimate objective of Bill C-7 is to serve the interests of individual Canadians. It is part of our policy, if parliament decides that a bill like that to be proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare should be adopted, that on behalf of the Canadian people we have taken a measure consistent with the interests of individual Canadians.


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Because of the fact that about three or four weeks ago the minister promised legislation regarding the World Football League within two weeks, can the minister assure the House that we can expect the legislation to be introduced next week, or has the cabinet not agreed on the matter yet?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in my original statement on this subject I said that in fact I hoped it would come about in the following two or three weeks, but I had clearly indicated that delays were possible. One of these has been caused by the preparation of the important legislation introduced today concerning the Canada Pension Plan, which will be of benefit to all Canadians. I also mentioned that the bill would be introduced before the Easter recess and I am confident that that will be sometime next week.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. I ask it against the background of concern about the undue delay in the appointment of a chairman of the Metropolitan Area Growth Incentives Corporation in the metropolitan area of Halifax. Has there been any communication with the province of Nova Scotia, particularly in light of the fact they now have Mr. Scott McNutt to assume that position? If there has been some communication, is the minister now in a position to indicate when that job will be filled?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, there has not been any communication in recent weeks. The government of Nova Scotia was otherwise engaged-and successfully engaged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: During that time there was no further correspondence and there has not been anything since Tuesday.


REQUEST THAT RAILWAYS OPEN SNOWBOUND BRANCH LINES AND MOVE GRAIN IN LIGHT OF SASKATCHEWAN HIGHWAY LOAD RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of the announcement he made recently regarding emergency movement of grain and the closure of several railway branch lines, with farmers being asked to haul grain to main or secondary main lines, and in view of the fact that, if they have not already done so, within the next few days the provincial government of Saskatchewan and municipalities in that province will be imposing road bans which will effectively prevent farmers from hauling grain to alternative delivery points, will the minister now call on the railways to open the closed branch lines and empty the elevators which are full of grain?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, of course spring conditions will affect the highway system and the grid roads in the prairie region just as they do rail lines, and the farmers will have to haul grain consistent with whatever provincial and municipal rules are in place. We hope there will be a quick response by the province and the municipalities to this situation and that the bans will be as limited as is necessary to preserve the roads.
The fact is that there are large quantities of grain available on the main lines that will be served by trains, and it would not particularly be to the advantage of farmers to delay the hauling of that grain by trying to send trains on to lines that are impassable, or where it would simply require too much locomotive power to plow them. We will therefore continue to offer farmers the opportunity, whenever conditions permit them to do so, to deliver to lines that are open.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Will the minister confirm that the VOR beacon at Frobisher Bay, the one which caused an unfortunate crash two months ago, is still on test, just as it has been on test for over two years?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to inquire and report to the hon. gentleman.
April 5, 1974


PURCHASE OF ADDITIONAL HOPPER CARS BY GOVERNMENT
Mr, Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In light of speculation that the government favours the purchase of 4,000 more hopper cars, can the minister say whether any orders have been placed and, if so, when will they be delivered and ready for use?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have more than favoured the purchase. We intend to purchase, and we have decided to purchase 4,000 hopper cars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto Emil Lang: The question is now being pursued about what rate of delivery we ought to anticipate in order that the appropriate tender calls can be issued and contracts can be placed at as early a date as possible.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. William C. Frank (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In light of the fact that the Canadian egg and turkey industries need some form of immediate federal assistance, can the minister assure the House that he will seriously encourage his seatmate and colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, to bring forward for second reading Bill C-4 amending the Export and Import Permits Act?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I can say that with the co-operation of the House the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce hopes to have that bill before the House later this day.


FEED GRAINS-REQUEST THAT PROVINCIAL PLEBISCITE FAVOURING MARKETING BY WHEAT BOARD BE CONSIDERED IN FORMULATING POLICY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the fact the Prime Minister, in answering a question yesterday, indicated that a plebiscite in regard to feed grain marketing would be considered of great importance to the government, may I ask the minister whether in formulating feed grain policy he will take into account the fact that 93 per cent of the farmers in Manitoba who answered a plebiscite sent out by the provincial government voted in favour of
Oral Questions
retaining the marketing of feed grains within the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that plebiscite was so misleading that anyone in favour of any type of feed grain proposal might have voted affirmatively, indeed, including myself without contradiction with the August 3 proposals, I do not think great attention should be paid to that kind of political venture. I think the kind of plebiscite the Prime Minister had in mind was the one held in connection with rapeseed when producers were given a fair opportunity to present their views in a clear and impartial manner.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Do I take it that the minister intends to ignore the expressed wishes of those farmers and base his policy largely on the wishes of the private grain trade?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the government, in considering finally the question of the feed grain policy for Canada, will be taking into consideration the interests of all Canadian producers and consumers of grain, and will produce a policy which is equitable and allows for the development of agriculture in this country according to the natural advantages and opportunities that exist.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The minister has announced that the main battle tank of the armed forces will be phased out and apparently not replaced. Can the minister tell us whether he plans to re-equip the armoured corps with some other type of armoured fighting vehicle such as armoured cars, does he intend to change the role of the armoured corps, or does he intend to disband the corps?


Erik Nielsen: Equip them with skidoos.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I have stated several times that the decision will be announced before 1976, which is the date to which the service of the Centurion tank has been extended.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: As this decision affects the lives of thousands of servicemen and their dependants, I hope the minister can come up with some better answer than that within the next two years so they will have an opportunity to plan their future.

April 5, 1974
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the minister responsible for consumer protection, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Does the minister intend to make representations to his colleague, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, in order to prevent greater Montreal contractors from demanding a price higher than the one the buyer had accepted when he took an option?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and I are already aware of these difficulties and we want to do our best to find a solution to problems of federal jurisdiction. But I think, of course, that this is mainly a matter under provincial jurisdiction; we will nevertheless do all we can to solve the problem.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has he been made aware of the serious shortage of corrugated containers facing the food processing industry in British Columbia? If so, has any action been taken to assure supplies adequate to meet the needs of the industry?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the problems that have arisen in this industry from time to time. Generally, I think that the initiatives we have taken and the actions the industry have taken have settled the problem. I will be pleased to look into this particular question on behalf of the hon. member.


Alexander Bell Patterson: As an over-all shortage of 800,000 containers is predicted for this year and a shortage of 200,000 within the next three months in one plant alone in my riding, will the minister give this problem immediate attention to ensure that remedial action is taken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a representation.


PRICE AGREED ON BY FIRST MINISTERS FOR CANADIAN CRUDE OIL-EFFECT OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL INCREASES ON CONSUMER PRICES
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Resources I should like to put a further question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement of the Acting Prime Minister today that the actual agreement of the first ministers was for $6.50 per barrel, is he aware of the telex sent by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stating that the agreement provided for an increase of $2.50 per barrel in Canadian crude oil prices and it did not specifically refer to a $6.50 price at the wellhead?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, at the first ministers' meeting there was no doubt whatever that there was general agreement on a $6.50 price, plus transportation costs, and no other agreement of any kind was reached.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for a supplementary, and perhaps we will have time for two more quick questions before calling orders of the day.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I again direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Noting that there are some apparent differences in the interpretation of the March 27 agreement and the possible effect on retail prices of the new, increased, wellhead rate, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House, in light of the revelation that an extra charge may be allowed on unconventional oils, which make up about 12 per cent of total domestic production, whether that extra charge will be added to the consumer price and raise prices substantially above the 8.5 cents and 3.5 cent limits specified earlier by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is asking me to enter into an arithmetical calculation in the House of Commons. I believe that it was a very considerable achievement to have reached agreement on a wellhead price of $6.50, a single price across Canada. The minor changes Alberta has made unilaterally and not by agreement are not such as to cause us to bring the whole agreement into question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a further supplementary. I will recognize him and then call orders of the day.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, can the Acting Prime Minister confirm if the retail price will be at least slightly higher than was originally anticipated?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman can do arithmetic too. I think questions of this kind should be directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources who will be here at the beginning of next week.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I raise a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Supply and Services on a point of order.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to answer the question put by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) as regards the sulphur content of Roumanian oil.
April 5, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister can answer a question after the oral question period only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, tests were made at Golden Eagle Canada Limited where the oil obtained from Roumania is stored and the results showed that the sulphur content is .14 and .16. This means that the oil can be used as is, for it has a very low sulphur ratio.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order-


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West is rising on a point of order but my understanding is that since the minister was replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the hon. member has risen on a point of order, his point of order must be on the same subject. After that I will hear all points of order that hon. members may wish to submit for the consideration of the Chair.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my point of order relates to an answer given by the Minister of Supply and Services a question was asked in respect of Roumanian and Caribbean oil, and the minister did not confirm that the Caribbean oil does not contain sulphur in excess of Canadian clean air requirements. The reason for this is very simple. The contract supplied by his department does not contain any grade requirement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is an interesting point of order but I find it difficult to relate that point of order to the Standing Order. It seems to me that this is debate. Perhaps the minister and the hon. member might like to pursue the matter on Monday, or outside the House in the meantime. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I will not try your patience unduly. I have noted that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has been attempting since Wednesday to reply to a question I addressed to the Prime Minister on Tuesday. I wonder whether the minister might be permitted, with the agreement of the House, to reply to my question?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the question which was put to me by the hon. gentleman related to the Greenpeace and the action that the Canadian government has taken. I would
Fisheries Development Act
inform him that on March 26 I wrote to the solicitor for Mr. McTaggart and informed him that the Canadian ambassador in Paris is making representations to the appropriate French authorities with a view to attempting once again to settle Mr. McTaggart's claim. Should discussions between representatives of our two governments fail to materialize or fail to bring about a reasonable settlement, subject to Mr. McTaggart's wishes the Canadian government will then formally espouse the claims arising out of both the 1972 and the 1973 Greenpeace III incidents.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Fisheries) moved: that Bill C-2, to amend the Fisheries Development Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am moving the second reading motion on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) who is unavoidably absent from the House today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to make the second reading speech because there is an extensive fishery in my own electoral district. There are many communities that are almost wholly dependent upon a flourishing fishing industry.
Hon. members will recall that the substance of this amendment was discussed in the standing committee in the last session. It was only by inadvertence that the amendment that was agreed upon in the committee was not made in the House when the bill itself was approved. The purpose of this bill is really to do a good deed that was wanted to be done in the last session. Its purpose is to give authority to the government to provide financial support for the conversion and modification of fishing vessels.
As far as the legislation itself is concerned, the amendment is very short and consists of only a few words. However, the effect of the amendment on the fishery could be considerable. Under the existing fishing vessel construction program now administered by the Department of the Environment, through its Fisheries and Marine Service, subsidies may only be paid for new vessel construction. The purpose of the amendment is to authorize the Fisheries and Marine Service to make additional payments under the Fisheries Development Act to owners of small or intermediate size vessels to assist with the cost of an authorized conversion or modification. The change that is being sought in this amendment does, in a sense, reflect the changing pattern of Canada's fisheries.
There is every reason to believe we are on the threshold of a most important era in the development of Canada's

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
fisheries. There are several factors which point to that conclusion. First, as a government and as a country, we are pushing very hard to expand our limits much farther seaward in order to gain greater control over the harvesting, protection and development of our marine resources off our coasts. It is also evident that Canada is achieving greater recognition as a coastal state. I believe that is evidenced by the increased catch quotas granted to this country by the International Commission for the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. It is the conclusion of the Minister of Fisheries and his department that fish are there to be taken by Canadians, but in some ways, probably many ways, our fishermen do not have the right kind of vessels or the right kind of equipment to enable them to go out and harvest the fishery resources. The purpose of this amendment is to change this to some extent by making funds available to owners of existing vessels so that they can make the necessary modifications or conversions to enable them to operate more efficiently and profitably.
I will not go further into the development of an explanation, except to say that in the administration of the subsidy and its application to modifications or conversions, the same criteria which are presently being used by the Fisheries and Marine Service in approving subsidies for new vessel construction will be applied to modifications and conversions. The Fisheries and Marine Service will be selected in approving any boat for conversion. It will want to assure itself that any conversion will result in a marked improvement in the harvesting capability of the vessel. The department will look thoroughly into the sustainable yield of resources by species and area where the vessel will be operating. Market demands will be assessed and technical and economic efficiency will be examined before any approvals are given or decisions are made.
That is the gist of the proposed amendment. I am satisfied it will get the support of hon. members of the House.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-2, to amend the Fisheries Development Act. I first wish to say that I regret the inability of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) to be with us today, but I realize that at times his duties require him to be outside the House. As a Nova Scotian, I welcome the comments of a fellow Nova Scotian, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen).
This is a very short bill. As stated in the explanatory note, when the bill is passed the minister will have the authority to make payment, not only for the construction of an equipment for fishing vessels, but also their modification and conversion.
This bill provides us with an opportunity to review the Fisheries Development Act which was first introduced by the then Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. H. J. Robichaud, on March 6, 1966. At this time I must express my regret, and I believe the sincere regret of many fishermen on the Atlantic coast, the west coast and in central Canada, that we do not have today a minister entitled the Minister of Fisheries whose sole responsibility would be to develop and implement policy for this important primary industry. However, the decision to place the responsibility for our environment as well as fisheries on the shoulders of one minister was a decision that was taken by the present government. It is one for which they will have to give an

accounting to the fishermen, at least in Atlantic Canada, at some future date.
The origin of the act may be traced back to a 1964 federal-provincial fisheries conference which was attended by representatives of all the fisheries administrations, as well as the federal fisheries service. At that time the representatives agreed there should be a national fisheries development program emphasizing development of, rather than research into, fisheries matters. Passage of the Fisheries Development Act empowered the fisheries service to take initiatives in all aspects of fisheries development. It is worth noting that prior to the introduction of this act, programs of assistance to the fishing industry were implemented through specific appropriations and not under a specific piece of fisheries legislation.
The Fisheries Development Act as originally passed permits the Minister of the Environment to undertake projects of basically three different types. This act is all encompassing as far as the fishing industry is concerned. It might well be called the fishing industry's bible. First, it is concerned with projects designed to implement more efficient exploitation of fishery resources and exploration for and development of new fishery resources and new fisheries, second, projects for the introduction and demonstration to fishermen of new types of fishing vessels, equipment and techniques; third, projects for the development of new fishery products, as well as projects for the improvement of the handling, processing and distribution of fishery products.
The act also permits the minister to enter into agreements with the provinces for the joint undertaking of authorized projects and, with the approval of the Governor in Council, to provide for the payment to the province of contributions in respect of the cost of authorized projects.
In the formulation and assessment of fisheries development projects, the federal government may undertake economic studies either alone, or jointly with provincial agencies, universities, educational institutions or private individuals. The minister is also permitted to enter into agreements with any person for the joint undertaking of any authorized project, and to make payments to any such person or make a contribution in respect of the cost of any such project undertaken by that person. The minister is required to make use of the services and facilities of other federal departments or agencies wherever possible in carrying out any authorized project or economic study under the Act.
The minister, subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the Governor in Council, may make payments for the construction and equipment of commercial cold storage facilities or commercial bait freezing facilities equipped with mechanical refrigeration which are suitable for the preservation of fishery products, the modification of such facilities in order to make such facilities suitable for the preservation of fishery products, and the construction and equipment of fishing vessels. The Act also outlines certain provisions which are to be included in agreements with respect to projects undertaken with a province and payments to a province.
April 5, 1974

The establishment of advisory committees and the remuneration and expenses of members of such committees are also covered by the act in addition to general requirements. It should be noted that the act allows the Governor in Council to make regulations prescribing the person to whom payments may be made, the maximum amount of each payment and the terms and conditions attached to such payments. The minister is also required to submit a report to parliament covering the operations for each fiscal year under the act and covering agreements made under the Act as soon as possible after the termination of each fiscal year.
In June of 1973, the Minister of the Environment summarized the original Fisheries Development Act as follows:
The Act provides for the exploration end development of known fisheries and of entirely new fishery resources, the introduction and demonstration of new and improved fishing vessels and fishing techniques, the development of new fish products and the improvement of product handling, processing and distribution, and a wide range of development programs, including assistance for the construction and equipment of fishing vessels. Various cost-sharing projects were made possible by this legislation which was passed initially in 1966. In short, we now have legislation which enables us to introduce measures to develop the fishery.
An Act to amend the Fisheries Development Act was passed by the House of Commons on July 20, 1973. Under the amendment, payments for the construction, equipment and modification of commercial cold storage and commercial bait freezing facilities were expanded to include payments for the construction and equipment of commercial icemaking and ice-storing facilities or commercial fish-chilling facilities which would contribute to increased productivity in commercial fishing operations.
Speaking on the amendment in committee, the Minister of the Environment stated that the additional grants would relate to both the cost of constructing and equipping icemaking, ice-storing and fish-chilling facilities ashore and the capital costs, excluding the cost of installation, of sea-water refrigerating units in fishing vessels. At that time it was stated the amendment would enable the government to make grants equal to 50 per cent of the cost of such facilities but not exceeding $25,000 to any one applicant in any one part or location. At this point I cannot help wondering what happened to this proposal. I should like the minister or his parliamentary secretary to tell the House later just how many fish-chilling facilities have been built since July 20, 1973.
Announcing this policy, the government estimated that more than 100 million pounds of fish were rejected annually in Canada as being unfit for human consumption largely due to inadequate chilling between the time the fish were caught and the time they were delivered to market or to a processing plant. Obviously there was a need for icemaking and ice-storage facilities. The minister stated in support of his 1973 amendments:
The economic loss to the fishing industry because of fish rejected as unfit for human consumption and because of a reduction in quality of fish still sold for human use is estimated to amount to more than $25 million annually at the present time. These heavy losses are directly attributable to spoilage of fish aboard fishing vessels and during transport to the processing plants. The spoilage occurs because of the almost total lack of ice available to in-shore fishermen in Canada. The magnitude can be appreciated when we realise there are approximately 45,000 in-shore fishing boats operated on our two coasts.
Fisheries Development Act
A recent survey has shown that $9 million worth of additional equipment capable of producing a total of 2,600 tons of ice per day is required across Canada to satisfy fully the needs of these in-shore fishermen. Some 370 locations have been identified as requiring additional facilities of this kind with the Provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia heading the list.
My hon. friends from Newfoundland will, later in this debate, put on record any developments which have taken place in that province. But it was estimated that Nova Sctoia needed something like four ice making machines having a capacity of two tons of ice per day, 10 with a capacity of between 2 and 5 tons a day, 17 having a capacity of between 5 and 10 tons a day, 14 machines with a capacity of between 10 and 15 tons and 7 with a capacity of 15 to 20 tons.
Mr. Speaker, there has been almost complete silence from the Department of Fisheries with regard to this project. What has been accomplished since July, 1973 with regard to the establishment of these icemaking plants? As far as I know there are none at Peggy's Cove or West Dover, none at Mill Cove, Blandford, Ironbound, Big or Little Tancook, or at other fishing ports in Lunenburg County, Queens County or Shelburne County.
This amendment was discussed at considerable length during the meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry which took place on June 19, 1973. There was a brief exchange of views concerning the shortening of contract time for fish-chilling facilities from ten to five years from the date of application. There was considerable discussion arising from the fact that certain major ports were excluded from the fish-chilling program under the draft regulations. Additional comments centred on the adequacy or otherwise of the supply of fresh water to smaller ports in Nova Scotia. Nothing has been done in this area since then; one of the major ports of Nova Scotia namely, Riverport is still suffering from an inadequate supply of fresh water. Lengthy discussions took place with regard to a possible connection between regulations governing the inspection of vessels and regulations covering the amendment to the Act concerning fish-chilling.
Members of the committee questioned government officials as to the criteria used in determining the number of locations at which additional icemaking facilities might be established. Subsequent discussion concerned the price at which ice should be available to fishermen and the coordination of the fish-chilling program with activities under the small harbours program. There were brief comments relating to the distance a local fisherman would be required to travel in order to obtain ice, and representations that such considerations should be borne in mind when determining the precise locations for fish-chilling and icemaking facilities. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, our fears at that time were justified, because the implementation of this program has been long delayed. I believe we have a right to know what progress has been made in these matters.
There was a lengthy discussion on the requirement in the original act that the minister submit an annual report on activities authorized under the act during the fiscal year. The minister and department officals pointed out that reports on such activities had always been included in the annual reports of the department under the activities of the industrial development branch of the fisheries ser-

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
vice. Further discussion took place as to the connection between vessel inspection regulations to be implemented in April, 1975 and regulations under the proposed fish-chilling program. Government officials pointed out that there was some confusion between the two sets of regulations. The suggestion was made that modification of vessels might be necessary in order to permit the installation of refrigerated sea-water units in fishing vessels. As one member of the committee put it: "Where does modification leave off and new installation begin?" The minister replied that it was his intention to discuss modifications and conversion of fishing vessels at a later date, but that if a fisherman were faced not only with adding ice chilling facilities but with conversion of the vessel itself, he could apply under two separate programs. It is now nearly a year later, Mr. Speaker, but to date the minister has not replied or given the fisheries committee or individual members the information that he promised at that time.
In the act as originally passed in 1966-1967, the minister is allowed to make payments, subject to terms and conditions prescribed by the governor in council, "for the construction and equipping of fishing vessels". An act to amend this section was given first reading in this House on March 4, 1974. The proposed amendment, by adding the words "modification" and "conversion" to the paragraph that I have just quoted, essentially permits the fisheries service to make payments to vessel owners or to shipyards in the amount of 35 per cent of the cost of an authorized conversion or modification to an existing vessel. The act as originally passed allowed subsidies only for new vessel construction. New keels had, in fact, to be laid before grants or subsidies could be paid.
With reference to this particular amendment the Minister of the Environment said this last year:
The existing assistance program envisages a subsidy of 35 per cent of the approved construction cost for vessels from 35 feet upward to 75 feet in length. A subsidy at the same rate is also available for the construction of vessels of more than 75 feet in length. This latter subsidy is, however, administered by the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Prior to granting the subsidy, the federal Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce requires an authorization from the fisheries service to the effect that the vessel is indeed needed in the fishery. So the fisheries service does have control both over the vessels which it helps finance of a size between 35 and 75 feet, and by individual approvals over the larger vessels of more than 75 feet in length, the subsidy of which comes out of a vote under Industry, Trade and Commerce.
The purpose of the proposed addition to the program is to enable small fishermen to improve their vessels, for example, to replace open boats with larger and more mobile craft. Subsidy applications have to meet requirements as to suitability, safety, and construction specifications, in all cases set by the fisheries service.
The minister went on to add that, while subsidies on new vessel construction make a very important contribution to the modernization of Canadian fisheries, there is now evidence that assistance in the conversion or modification of existing craft is also required. At this time he further stated:
I am now proposing the introduction of an amendment to the Fisheries Development Act, which will allow the government to pay financial assistance for conversions of and modifications to existing fishing vessels. In the implementation of this program the same criteria will apply to new vessel construction and to conversion and modifications.

The basic criterion is that the vessel must show promise of a marked improvement in its economic or operating efficiency as a result of the conversion or modification. This, I submit, is very difficult to do in light of the declining resource on our continental shelf.
The proposed vessel conversion and modification amendment was discussed in detail at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry on June 21, 1973. A major portion of the discussion at that time involved the difference between the 35 per cent figure for construction, equipment, modification or conversion of vessels and the 50 per cent figure for icemaking, ice-storing and fish-chilling facilities. The view was expressed that the 35 per cent figure would be inadequate in the light of current costs to fishermen, and this is a view that we on this side of the House still share.
At that time there was also some discussion on the inter-relationship between the application of the Fisheries Development Act as proposed, and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. Under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, loans can be made for the purchase or construction of fishing vessels and major repair or overhaul of the fishing vessel or its hull, superstructure or engine. The minister stated that a fisherman owning a vessel who wished to modify the vessel under the Fisheries Development Act as proposed could obtain 35 per cent assistance and, in addition, get a loan from a bank to help finance the remaining 65 per cent of the cost of conversion or modification under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
In light of present day costs, the 35 per cent subsidy is definitely inadequate. This percentage rate should be revised and reconsidered by the minister and his staff. For example, we had a 9 per cent erosion of the purchasing power of our dollar only last year. This year it is estimated that there will be a further erosion of 10 per cent. This means that over a two-year period we face an erosion of something like 20 per cent of the purchasing power of our money, yet the government still says to the fishermen and fishing companies: "You must modernize your ships and all that we will pay toward this modernization is a subsidy of 35 per cent". We believe that this subsidy is inadequate.
On November 14, 1973, the Minister of the Environment announced the lifting of the freeze on subsidies for new fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast which was imposed on August 13, 1973. According to the minister, the freeze was introduced in order to slow down a boom in fishing vessel construction which threatened to over-capitalize a fleet which was already large. In announcing the lifting of the freeze, the minister stressed that the accent in the future would be placed on modernization and that replacements and conversions of existing vessels would be encouraged.
In the same statement the minister then made the following announcement:
Accordingly and effective immediately:
(a)	All commercial fishing vessels, traps and other catching units
will be registered by the Fisheries and Marine Service;
(b)	all vessels, shippers and operators will be licensed;
(c)	only Canadian citizens and landed immigrants will be eligible;
(d)	all craft, shippers, crews and other operators which have a
history in the industry will continue, automatically, to have the right
to fish;

(e)	new entrants will be limited, in the case of lobsters, scallops, salmon, herring and snow crab to replacements.
These fisheries in the main are already limited in size. New vessel registrations in the groundfish fishery will be encouraged for underexploited species and areas. As for those that are fully exploited, the moratorium on new vessel registrations will be continued for a further nine-month period. This time is required for further consultations with fishermen, companies and provincial authorities as to the future of that sector of the industry;
(f)	special committees will be set up in our principal fishing areas in order to advise the government as to the manner in which this program should be administered; and
(g)	local fishermen and local company representatives will have a voice in the management of the fishery in this way.
Registration of vessels and the issuance of operators' licences will begin early in the new year, and will start with large vessels and the fleets which are already limited in size.
The vessels are now being examined but they are not being licensed, since they cannot pass the requirements set out by the department. This applies to boats which in some cases are only one year old. I ask the government, what is to happen to these particular ships and their owners? The owners have already mortgaged their homes in many cases in order to secure the down payment. The owners of the boats have a large loan from the provincial loan boards in the provinces of Atlantic Canada. They are now faced with a new set of regulations calling for a conversion for which they have no money and for which they will be required to go even deeper into debt.
The minister said that fishermen and ships must be licensed in order to know who are bona fide fishermen and who are not. It was stressed that the government needed the licensing data in order to upgrade the fishery, in order to develop a sound system of catch insurance. In reply to the statement, we pointed out at that time that fisheries inspection officers were unable to secure the signatures of captains and owners after inspecting the inshore and offshore fleets. They were not going to sign the inspection certificates, some of which I have before me, because, in the words of one captain, "I would be signing my own death warrant".
We further pointed out that the moratorium or freeze on new vessel registration for an additional nine-month period for fully exploited species and areas in the ground-fish fishery would definitely be harmful to the over-all expansion of the fishing industry. We also expressed concern about the fact that vessels already fishing, or for which firm commitments were made, would only be granted licences provided they met existing regulations. We also pointed out that if the government enforces the new regulations strictly before licences are issued, then it should also pay a larger improvement construction grant in order to enable the fishermen to upgrade their vessels in compliance with the new regulations. However, to date no action has been taken on our recommendations, which sometimes makes me wonder, Mr. Speaker, about the futility of debate in the House and in committee. Surely, some of these recommendations could have been adopted.
What are some of the new regulations, Mr. Speaker? On March 22 the minister sent out new guidelines concerning new inspection requirements for our new fishing vessels, and these are as follows. I am not going to read all of them, Mr. Speaker, because some of them are acceptable, but the guidelines concerning inspection requirements for fishing
Fisheries Development Act
vessels as laid out by the minister and his department state;
(a) Protection from sun and weather All containers for storage of fish, such as hold and deck containers, shall be provided with rigid, non-absorbant, close fitting covers;
Mr. Speaker, if this were strictly enforced, it could spell the death knell of the small boat fishery in Atlantic Canada. On page 2, item 2 of the guidelines reads:
Fish processing equipment and all surfaces, which come in contact with fish, shall be made of non-corrodible material, other than wood, shall be constructed to facilitate proper cleaning and have all joints on such surface smooth and watertight.
Mr. Speaker, wooden ships are the backbone of the fishing industry, or at least the inshore fishing industry, in Atlantic Canada and are still important in the offshore industry. Item 2(b) of the guidelines reads:
Fish holds, penboard shelving, fish boxes, refrigerated seawater tanks, cold storage areas, etc., shall be constructed of durable, non-corrodible, smooth and impervious material, such as FRF, coated ferrocement, approved high density plastics and seawater-resistant aluminium alloys, wood-coated with non-durable materials, such as paints, is not acceptable.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but ask, why? If fibreglass is used to line the hold of a wooden ship or if ferro cement is used to line the hold of a wooden ship, when that ship is in a 50 or 60 mile an hour gale in the north Atlantic, the working of the ship will cause the fibreglass or ferrocement to crack. Then, the offal from fish is bound to get in the cracks and between the ferrocement or fibreglass lining and the hold. This will create odours and a condition which certainly will not be acceptable. Even if the lining were sufficiently tight that there was no leakage it would bring about a condition of dry rot. We experienced that with Bluenose II which required expensive repairs.
In my opinion, and the opinion of fishermen and the shipbuilding industry, there is no reason why epoxy coated wood, if kept clean, would not be as satisfactory as fibreglass or ferro cement as an antibacterial material for the fish hold and the stanchions, which would satisfy the fishermen and the industry. There is, in fact, no substitute for large quantities of ice and this is why I deplore the lack of action on the icemaking, storing, and distributing facilities. Packing fish against ice is the only way to assure good quality when the product is landed.
It is interesting to note the reaction of the fishermen and the industry generally to some of the minister's proposals. It could be summed up as "too much interest" in the industry by the government, as new regulations affecting specific fisheries, licensing, packaging and inspection rules are promulgated. Perhaps the main problem is the feeling of many people in the industry which parallels that of our early colonists in America toward the rulings made by others in far away England who did not really understand the colonists' problems. As in that day, many of our fishermen look upon Ottawa and the federal government as a far-off dictatorship, anxious to control everything through building up its own bureaucratic empire in the industry, without knowing or understanding its problems.
I realize that this is a rather harsh indictment of the present Department of the Environment and its minister,

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
but unfortunately it represents the truth of the situation as it presently exists in Atlantic Canada. It was this unrest among fishermen, this frustration and despair and mounting criticism which caused Environment Canada to arrange meetings with fishermen and industry representatives when consultation took place over such matters as Canada's Law of the Sea proposal, licensing regulations and ship inspection laws. Just how effective such meetings really are in overcoming Ottawa's dictatorial image is open to question, since the meetings are planned by Ottawa, are run according to the ground rules of the department and are packed with high-ranking bureaucrats.
After these meetings a lot of fishermen have told me that they were over-awed by the well-educated, well-dressed officials and by the obvious power which these men wield. I have attended these meetings and can appreciate their concern. These fishermen are invited to come and express their views, but when they go home they realize their opinions may as well have been written on the winds, or on the sands! It is like baling water from a boat whose seams have opened below the waterline. It is an exercise in futility, in the opinion of the fishermen. Many of them know that the Minister of the Environment is trying to do something but they are not too sure whether his efforts are designed to help them or the foreign fishermen who roam our banks and pillage and plunder our resources. Obviously, the lines of communication between the minister and the fishermen who are the backbone of the fishing industry, are down and they must be repaired.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, throughout the discussions relating to the Fisheries Development Act, it has not been made clear exactly how the regulations governing grants and subsidies with respect to new vessel construction and equipment, vessel modification and conversion, ice-making and fish-chilling facilities and regulations governing the registration of vessels and licensing of operators, are interrelated. There appears to be a close connection between the regulations for registration of new vessels and those for subsidies for new vessel construction. There also appears to be a close relationship, in some cases, between regulations governing the subsidies for refrigerated sea-water units on board vessels and regulations governing subsidies for modification and conversion of vessels. Regulations governing the quality of fish handling, processing and distribution appear to be closely related and, in many cases, dependent upon the regulations in the areas I have mentioned.
We on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, are not opposed to the changes that have been proposed in this bill. We feel that the 35 per cent subsidy is inadequate, however, and in the light of present day costs the government should consider increasing this to at least 50 per cent. We believe that it would be helpful if the government made every effort to communicate with the fishermen so that those engaged in the industry would be alerted to its plans and, hopefully, improve upon them.
With all the staff that the minister has I think he should have one more person and that is a "gofor"-someone who can go for the information the fishermen and the wooden shipbuilders need. I am sure this gofor would be helpful to

the minister in finally planning and carrying out policies and programs which would have some input from the fishermen and have a more meaningful bearing on the future of their livelihood.


Mr. Elias Nesdoly (Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), many of which were pertinent to the situation in eastern Canada, and I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEac-hen). Both of these gentlemen are Nova Scotians, and in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland the fishing industry is of major importance. The hon. member for South Shore talked about the importance of the fishery on the east coast, the Atlantic coast and in central Canada. When he said that, I felt just a wee bit insulted because there is a fairly significant freshwater fishery in the northern prairies and the Northwest Territories. The area which I represent in Saskatchewan produces quite a few million pounds of freshwater fish each year. Our fishermen have problems, too, although we may not hear about them too often in this House.
I sympathize with the problems of the hon. member for South Shore in regard to icemaking and fish-chilling facilities. I know that is a problem on the east coast but our problem is that our whole north country is an ice house for about eight months of the year. All we need is enough ice houses which we can fill in the wintertime and then we have no problem with fish-chilling facilities. Our problems are of a slightly different nature.
As I understand Bill C-2, it proposes a minor amendment which simply adds two words. The words are "modification, conversion and equipment of fishing vessels". Up to this time, I believe there have been government grants or assistance in respect of the construction of new vessels used in the fishing industry. This amendment will provide for modification and conversion of fishing vessels. I think this is an amendment worthy of the support of all members of this House. I know it will be supported by members of the party I represent. I only hope that when this amendment comes into effect its provisions will be available not only for the modification and conversion of vessels along our coasts, but also will be available to the freshwater fishermen in the prairies.
Earlier today I was speaking to some members who suggested that all we have are a bunch of potholes in Saskatchewan. I want to point out to some hon. members that the ninth largest lake in Canada, Lake Athabasca, is in my constituency. It is about 80 miles long by 40 miles wide and when a storm blows up, it is pretty fierce. I have been out on the lake. I think it is important to have some funds available to the fishermen in order that they may be able to improve or convert the vessels they have, because this would help them maintain the standard of the fishery.
Last year there were some minor amendments to the Fisheries Development Act which, as the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) pointed out, covered icemaking and ice-storing facilities. I think that was commendable. It is perhaps unfortunate this amendment was not included last year, but as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
MacEachen) said it was an oversight and we all have our human weaknesses. In the prairies, the province of Manitoba produces up to 21 million pounds of fresh water fish per year, Saskatchewan produces up to 15 or 16 million pounds per year and northern Alberta produces up to three million or four million pounds a year. The Northwest Territories as well, produces several million pounds.
I should like to emphasize one thing for the benefit of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), the minister in charge of fisheries; that is, fishermen in northern Saskatchewan have often complained that they have experienced extreme difficulty in obtaining financing under this act. Sometimes they have had the feeling that the department was not too interested in this freshwater fishery.
A major reason for my participation today is to impress on the minister that there is a freshwater fishery in this country, and that even though it is not the most significant or important occupation in the west it does provide a livelihood for quite a few hundred people. I think when these people ask for grants or help in order to modify or build fishing boats this help should be made available to them. Certainly, I realize that the bulk of the financing will go to the Pacific and Atlantic coasts where the great fisheries are, but we must also take into consideration those people who earn their livelihood from fishing on the northern prairies.
I wish to commend the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) who last year gave assistance- because we could not obtain it through the fisheries act- in the form of financing to the Athabasca Fishery Cooperative which wished to buy seven or eight lake boats. These are old boats, and I hope that perhaps this amendment will now make it possible for these fishermen to obtain some grants for the purpose of upgrading their boats to a proper standard.
Another thing I wish to mention is that fish farming is becoming increasingly popular on the prairies. Certainly, I know of a number of people within my riding who are becoming involved in fish farming. My colleague tells me this is the case in Assiniboia. I know a farmer who had a 20-acre lake with water depth ranging up to 20 feet. This was useless, except that the cattle drank the water which meant that there was no need to pump it. He started experimenting. He put trout fingerlings in the lake. It has been found out that it is possible to produce a fair amount of fish by stocking a lake with fingerlings in the spring and harvesting them in the fall. This fish farmer has a market for the fish in Regina and other cities. As these potholes and ponds become more and more productive, I hope some of these people will be eligible for assistance not in respect of fishing vessels but in respect of perhaps ice making and storing equipment. Some farmers have asked me about this. I said that if they have a fairly significant fish farming operation they might be able to obtain some assistance in respect of providing ice making and ice-storing facilities. This is the type of assistance which might be of benefit to them.
In closing I wish to mention that in northern Saskatchewan it is the native and Metis people to whom fishing is a very significant occupation. Some of them have done very well at it. Some of them have encountered problems
Fisheries Development Act
because the fishing equipment they have is old and requires updating. Perhaps some of their methods of fishing should be updated as well. I hope this measure in some small way will help the people in northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba obtain a greater degree of self-sufficiency because after all this is what they want. They want to be able to hold up their heads with pride and dignity and be able to earn their own living without being dependent on government aid, either through social security or other measures.
Another matter that has bothered the people of the north and the west involves the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. There have been problems concerning the price this corporation pays to the fishermen and so on. Before the fisheries committee last year the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) and I introduced a motion requesting an investigation of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, but the minister has never taken any action on this. I hope he will do so in the not too distant future. I realize I am getting slightly off the topic, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to conclude by saying that this is a commendable amendment and I hope it can go through all stages today and be passed without too much delay.


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first I would thank the minister and congratulate him for introducing this bill. Although it is rather brief, it is still very important because, as we know, its purpose is to qualify the modification and the conversion of fishing boats so as to be eligible for departmental subsidies. It was mentioned earlier that it was regrettable that the fisheries service was part of the Department of Environment. It depends on the points of view, Mr. Speaker. It is not sure that government structure would profit by the creation of small departments.
Since the incorporation of the fisheries service in the Department of Environment, we have seen many improvements to the fishing industry, to fishermen, to the regulations, of which this is an example. There is also the creation of the small craft harbours branch through which the Department of Environment budgets building and maintenance programs for port facilities, particularly when they concern fisheries.
So it all depends on points of view. In my opinion, there may be some advantages to the fisheries service being incorporated in a larger department and considering the benefits that accrued from the situation, we could say the change was a good one. Of course, the fishing industry and the protection of the environment are two very closely related activities, because in many aspects fisheries will depend in the future on the way we will protect our environment.
As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, fishing is a very important activity in my riding. I have not recently taken the time to make an economic evaluation of the fishing industry in relation to others. There are other important industries in my riding such as mining, lumber and, to a small degree, agriculture but in view of the number of

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
people engaged in fishing or working in fish packing plants, fisheries are certainly the most socially important industry in my electoral district.
Thus, in 1969, 17 per cent of fish catches in Canada were produced in my riding. A percentage of 17 is a lot, Mr. Speaker, even for a Nova Scotia member. I am proud of this achievement, and that explains why fishing is not only a part of our economy, but a part of our culture. In fact, for several coastal settlements, the end of fishing would mean a great cultural, social, and economic loss.
The amendments introduced by the minister today will be very profitable, Mr. Speaker, since, for many years, the fishing industry has been overdeveloped. When one type of fishing becomes overdeveloped, the fisherman must abandon his boat because all his equipment is aimed at this particular industry. He finds himself at a disadvantage since the only way he can benefit from the subsidy is to abandon his old boat or sell it or have another one built. I think this bill will rectify this situation.
Not only will the bill help fishermen in such a situation, but it will also make positive improvements. We must urge the fishermen to go into types of fishing that will be more profitable. If today, for instance, a fisherman is herringfishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence or the Chaleurs Bay, because I am a native of this area, one that you know very well Mr. Speaker, or if he is herring-fishing offshore or even inshore, I think that he should be encouraged to convert his fishing to another species. This bill will enable the fisherman to qualify for subsidies to pay for his expenses when transforming his boat.
Not only is this a remedy or an improvement for the fisherman, since fishing is overdeveloped and no longer profitable, but it is also an encouragement, a stimulus for the fisherman. He will be able to determine whether his type of fishing is really the most profitable or whether he should not go into another type.
Mr. Speaker, the supply aspect of fishing is not the only one to determine if a fisherman should continue to fish one particular species; there is also the market situation to consider. Today, prices are good for Atlantic crab. For certain species there might be less fish so prices are in a state of depression. Fishermen could perhaps be encouraged to go into those resources whose market is more responsive and consequently more profitable.
I mentioned potential conversion or encouraging fishermen to convert when the market is perhaps not so good or when the resource is not there. Mr. Speaker, there are still in the sea species which are not sufficiently fished. For example, there is the small crab known as the rock crab and means have not yet really been found to handle it for market purposes. Incidentally, a company in my riding has filed an application with DREE to build a plant which will buy the small rock crab. Its name is not yet common currency but people familiar with fishing will know what I am talking about. They will be able to handle and market it. And fishermen will have to know in advance that that fish is marketable. They will have to buy equipment and in certain cases convert their vessels.
That fishing operation is usually done with multipurpose vessels, small vessels used to fish lobster or herring near the coasts, or even the larger crab, the Atlantic crab.

Some minor or major alterations might have to be done to the vessels. Mr. Speaker, may I call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned at one o'clock, I was in the process of explaining that Bill C-2 is not only a piece of legislation to help people being disadvantaged owing to the fact that the species of fish they are seeking to capture does not exist anymore or is threatened with extinction or that the market is not good. This bill incorporates many good features.
The positive aspect of this measure is as follows: The government, being responsible for that, will from now on encourage fishermen to look for the more profitable species of fish. Governments have the responsibility to make sure that Canadians get the maximum profit especially in the fishing area.
A way of ensuring that we are getting maximum earnings is to see that fishermen fish for a profitable resource, either, because the market is good or because the resource is sufficient.
Mr. Speaker, even if that has nothing to do directly with this bill, I should like to mention a few needs of the fishing industry in my area. Obviously, one must distinguish between deep-sea fishing and inshore fishing, as deep-sea fishing is much more a trade, an important business, economy-wise, than inshore fishing.
As I said before one o'clock, inshore fishing not only has an economical value but it also has undoubtedly a social and even a cultural value because people at home and everywhere in the Maritime provinces are proud of having settled along the shores on a community basis.
I should like to say, Mr. Speaker, that, contrary to what many people think, the fishing boat building subsidy program is not necessarily a subsidy program for the fishing industry. I find it most important to explain that fact. For example, in the case of smaller boats, that may be subsidizing the fishing industry but in the case of larger boats, traditionally, grants have been paid not necessarily because the fishing industry needed them but to maintain the Canadian shipyards.
The fishermen, and mainly those needing bigger boats, were and probably still are able to buy their boats abroad at a significantly lower cost than in Canada. The purpose of the program was first to subsidize the shipbuilding industry rather than the fishing industry.
I would like to mention a few needs of the fishing industry. Of course the most urgent one is the improvement of port facilities. We are all happy about the fact that the Department of Fisheries is now responsible for planning the construction of port facilities related to fishing.
April 5, 1974

But, Mr. Speaker, the national budget has been so much neglected for the past ten years or so that catching up with this negligence will be very costly and the government will have to maintain the national budget at a very high level.
The subcommittee of the committee on national resources and public works recommended last year that capital investments should be of the order of $30 million a year. In view of the fact that many facilities have been neglected in the past, even a $30 million budget is not too high and, of course, account taken of inflation, the government should keep this national budget at a much higher level than $30 million because funds spent in improving our port facilities are far from being wasted money.
If we consider the other economic contributions of those facilities, with the exception of commercial fisheries, I think that they provide many advantages.
I refer here to those facilities used not only for fishing but also for recreation. It is quite important to have coastal a harbour installations which can accommodate and assist Canadian boats.
I merely wish to say in conclusion that the improvement of harbour installations deeply concerns fishermen, local authorities, unions, fishermen's associations, industrialists and civic leaders, because they want, as I said a while ago, to make good and have harbour installations governed by adequate standards.
Mr. Speaker, even if it does not directly affect the bill, I would like to discuss the question of unemployment insurance for fishermen.
I think that many people still say that it is a social subsidy. It is no more a social subsidy for fishermen than it is for construction workers.
In many regions of this country, the construction industry is paralysed in the wintertime and consequently workers live on unemployment insurance.
What is unemployment insurance in these instances? It is a subsidy to the construction industry. To grant a social subsidy in the fishing sector is not worse than in the other sectors.
To my mind, there is some injustice in the way fishermen are treated under the unemployment insurance program. I have not the time today during this debate on a bill which concerns mainly subsidies for the modifications of boats, to discuss this problem in depth. However, I will simply say that after several meetings with groups of fishermen in my constituency, I realize that there are some obvious injustices and I hope the government will correct them as soon as possible.
It seems to me two things should be done. First of all, something similar to crop insurance should be set up, a type of catch insurance that would compensate fishermen for their losses in times of disasters and bad storms. This would help stabilize the fishermen's income.
But catch insurance, Mr. Speaker, would not suffice to give the fishermen social benefits comparable to those the unemployed get. There is no reason why fishermen should not get the same benefits as other workers. And what is worse, in several cases, the fishermen is subjected to special regulations under which he gets less benefit, less
Fisheries Development Act
unemployment insurance when his son or daughter or even his wife worked in a fish factory, and after eight, ten or 12 weeks of contributions, depending on the area of the country, and this happens in my riding, they are granted benefits for about 40 weeks.
When this special program was established in 1972, at the same time as the new unemployment insurance program, I think it was expected that a catch insurance program might be implemented to replace unemployment insurance for fishermen.
It is obviously impossible to do so, because the government contribution to the unemployment insurance fund is too high.
In order to be put on the same footing as other workers, the fishermen would have to pay much higher contributions, way too much as compared with that of other workers.
I merely want to say this at this point, Mr. Speaker, because it is an area that deeply concerns the fishermen of my riding.
By way of a conclusion, I shall say that the bill the hon. minister has brought forward today is a good one, not only because it aims at helping fishermen in difficult circumstances due to a poor market, the scarcity or overexploitation of a number of fish species, but also because it is an incentive. In fact, this positive legislation will encourage fishermen to consider and analyse in minute details the true benefits of fishing such and such species, and maybe convert their equipment and fishing vessels accordingly.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to take part in the debate and to support some of the propositions put forward before the luncheon break by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I am happy to see this amendment to the Fisheries Development Act. Many fishermen in my constituency have been anxiously waiting for passage of this legislation because they want to avail themselves of some of the funds which will be available under this act. I have certain reservations as to how accessible this fund will be to fishermen.
I have figures before me showing the disposition of funds made available under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act since its inception in 1955. As an Atlantic Canadian, I am not overly impressed with the amount of money which has been lent in my part of the country under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I am not at all against British Columbia getting all the funds it can under that act. I see, according to the statistics which have been given to me, that Pacific coast fishermen received two-thirds of all money lent under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act since its inception in 1955, and that little more than one-quarter of total funds went to Atlantic Canada.
One must bear in mind, too, that in 1971 Atlantic coast fishermen landed 2.1 billion pounds of fish and shellfish, whereas in the same period fishermen on the Pacific coast landed 229 million pounds of fish. This indicates to me clearly that there is greater need for assisting fishermen

riding at which I outlined in some detail what I thought the policy would mean for the future of the fishing industry. I could not find one person attending these meetings who had any idea what the possible effect of these new regulations might be on his traditional way of earning a living. I have reason to believe that today, two or three months later, the fishermen are no further ahead in their understanding of what is happening than they were when the minister made his statement on November 14.
I understand the minister has visited the province and held a few meetings, but I am at a loss to understand why he would go to Newfoundland and hold meetings for fishermen in communities which in many instances are probably 50 miles from the nearest fishing port. I have a feeling that the minister has developed an aversion to salt water, and to judge from some of the comments I have heard in the last few months his feelings in this respect are understandable, because in a great many areas fishermen are confused and unaware of what is happening. They are unable to obtain sufficient information from the minister and from the department. I hope the minister has more success in communicating the benefits of the amendment we are now debating, thereby enabling fishermen to take advantage of it, than he has had in communicating the effects and possible implications of the ship licensing program he announced in November.
When we talk about ships and modifications to fishing vessels, we must, of course, bear in mind that ships need good harbour facilities. This is another area in which the government has been sadly lacking in eastern Canada. I refer to the establishment of better and more modern harbour facilities. This year, approximately $4.5 million will be spent in Newfoundland to improve harbours and related facilities. This is only a drop in the bucket. In St. John's West alone we could use three times that amount to provide proper landing facilities for fishermen. It is strange that, though the government can find money for almost anything else-vast sums for the provision of bigger and better public buildings in Ottawa, for bigger and better underground parking structures in Hull, for the provision of multimillion dollar television transmission facilities in Toronto-it cannot find the funds necessary to provide the basic requirements of the Atlantic area.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter C. Carter: Some members may ask why they hear so much from representatives of the Atlantic area, particularly from Newfoundland, about the need for these facilities. We get up time after time to draw attention to the frustration of our fishermen. Is it any wonder that our fishermen feel this way or that they should have formed the impression that the government has written off the fishing industry and is content to throw crumbs to it, as it were, rather than embark on a program which would enable the industry to develop to its full potential?
Is it any wonder that our fishermen have expressed reservations with respect to the position Canada is to take at the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference? Can you blame the fishermen, Mr. Speaker, for having certain reservations as to the suitability of the minister who is to
Fisheries Development Act
lead our delegation at that conference, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)? They are aware of certain statements made by this minister during his career as a politician, and they are aware of his dislike for or indifference toward the fishing industry. This is why many of our fishermen are very skeptical as to the possible outcome of the conference.
My hon. friend from New Brunswick mentioned the need for a more comprehensive, more suitable plan of unemployment insurance for fishermen. We have been asking for such a program for a long time. The present program is unsatisfactory as far as we are concerned. There is no reason fishermen should be treated differently from people working in fish plants, or in any other walk of life, when it comes to unemployment insurance. I have consistently brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and of his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras). We have consistently called attention to the inequities of the present scheme as it applies to fishermen, but unfortunately our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
In concluding my remarks, let me say once again I support the position taken by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I support the bill but I regret that the amount of the subsidy should be 35 per cent rather than 50 per cent, at least. I strongly urge the government and the ministry to do everything possible by way of advertising and better liaison methods to make sure that every fisherman who needs some of this money, and who is eligible to receive it, will be in a position to apply for a loan or a subsidy and, all things being equal, to receive it. Based on our experience with respect to the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act only a small percentage of the available money will trickle into the areas where it is so badly needed. There is a great need for a better system of communication with the fishermen. I hope the minister will accept some of our recommendations in this regard and make sure that every fisherman will have access to this fund, and to the banks which will be handling the matter for the government.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of the bill before the House, Bill C-2, to amend the Fisheries Development Act. I should like to remind the minister responsible for the bill of some of the problems that are faced especially by the freshwater fishermen of the Northwest Territories.
Most of the fishermen of the Northwest Territories have to work under winter conditions and, as a result, this bill is not of much benefit to them. I hope the minister will bear this fact in mind and will not exclude fishermen of the Northwest Territories from its provisions. We have a number of fishermen in the Great Slave Lake and Great Bear Lake areas, as well as the Mackenzie, the inland lakes and the char fishery, people along the Arctic coast. Most of their operations take place in the wintertime and, therefore, transportation plays an important part. The Freshwater Fish Marketing Board has not been of much help to the fishermen in that area.
1202

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act	*
Another point that must be kept in mind is that DREE is not effective either in that part of the country. Funds to expand operations are not readily available to fishermen of the Northwest Territories. They are not making big money due to the high cost of transportation and the very long distances over which their product must be shipped. I encourage the minister responsible for the bill not to forget these fishermen who must make a living. It is important to the fishermen in the areas I have mentioned that funds be available if they wish to improve transportation facilities, their equipment, Bombardiers, toboggans and that sort of thing. As most hon. members know, these fishermen operate from October to May, much of their fishing being done through the ice. I close by saying once again that I hope the minister will not forget these inland fishermen.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise to take part in this debate on Bill C-2. As a west coaster I sometimes feel that the rest of the country does not realize that anything happens beyond the Rocky Mountains, but 1 can assure them it does. Therefore, it is with somewhat mixed feelings that I heard the second last speaker refer to the amount of financial assistance given to our fishing fleet. I do not want to compare figures. I simply hope the money will be distributed on the basis of need and usefulness on either coast. I expect that probably the west coast got the lion's share, because at that particular time we were in the market for a lot of new fishing vessels of modern design, and the funds made available have gone a considerable way to stimulating fishing vessel construction.
In this respect I point out that payments made to small shipyards in some cases have been lamentably late, and in one case at Victoria very nearly resulted in a local firm going bankrupt. I hope the minister will ensure that this does not happen in the future. These small shipyards are not giant organizations and are based on a rather precarious financial structure between contracts.
The lateness of this amendment is about the only thing I can criticize. This bill is before us today, April 5, and the fishing fleet in the southern part of Vancouver Island goes to sea next week. It is much too late for them to take advantage of the provisions of the bill in the immediate future, so they will have to wait until the next season. The bill could just as well have been brought in last fall. Then, during the winter season when the boats were laid up the necessary conversions and modifications could have been made. It is necessary that these conversions and modifications be made, particularly to the trolling vessels on the west coast, whose operators find they are forced to turn their boats into dual purpose boats. More and more want this year to turn their boats into netting and trolling vessels.
To understand the fishing industry at all on the west coast, Mr. Speaker, you have to understand the make-up of the industry and that is not simple. There are many conflicting interests in fishing on the west coast. The waters of the Straits of Juan de Fuca, the Gulf of Georgia, the west coast of Vancouver Island, the Queen Charlotte area and Prince Rupert are divided up between United States and Canadian interests, as well as other interests such as Japan and Russia. Then there is a further division

of conflicting interests within the Canadian fishery. The netting vessels are generally manned by members of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. Then, we have the Pacific Trolling Association, whose members are owners of their own boats and put to sea with a small crew. The third conflicting interest is the sports fisherman who is of commercial importance largely because of the number and what he does for the tourist industry.
To start with the United States interests in Pacific coast fishing, there are two factors that we must consider first of all. They consider it is their right to fish the Fraser River run. At present they are taking one-half of the sockeye run in the Fraser River, and they claim they are justified in doing so because back in the 1930's at the time of the Hell's Gate slide in the Fraser River repairs were made with a certain amount of U.S. money. They put $750,000 into building fish ladders in the Hell's Gate, and since that time they claim they are entitled in perpetuity to half of the sockeye salmon that spawn upriver. This results in their taking out something of the nature of four times their original investment every year, according to figures compiled on the basis of fish landed. We and the Americans are continuing to meet to determine how many fish each side has caught and how many each side is entitled to catch.
There are other difficulties with the United States. We divide the Straits of Juan de Fuca right down the middle along the international boundary. Fish, not knowing for sure whether they are Canadians or Americans, come into the western entrance to the straits and generally follow the Canadian shoreline for a distance, then bear right and go over to the American side and along the American shore. Canadians are the first to catch these fish because some 22 years ago we started netting them at the entrance to the straits on our side of the border. Netting there is not the most efficient way for us to reap the harvest, but at the present time it is a good arguing point with the United States. We have been doing it, as I say, for 22 years now and it is beginning to become a traditional right of ours. However, it would be more efficient, should we have the nets moved back toward the river mouth. This would, of course, alleviate the problem of the sports fishermen who generally fish behind the net in the area of Victoria and the Gulf Islands at Vancouver.
The Americans and Canadians are bargaining about this and if they could agree that it would be in the best interests of both countries, then we could move our nets back and take the fish harvest in a logical sequence. This would give the sports fishermen a crack at the fish before they get to the nets. The trollermen who fish in the open sea on the west coast of Vancouver Island are not concerned about the net fishing behind them except in terms of what it might do to production over the years.
For the coming year, rumoured restrictions on trolling catches for coho, are 1,900,000 fish for Canadians, to be caught by about 1,000 boats. That sounds like a lot of fish, Mr. Speaker. Incidentally, that word coho is c-o-h-o; it does not have an "e" on it and I would appreciate it if Hansard would spell it this way. I come from the area where coho is spawned, caught and canned and it is coho. This limitation of 1,900,000 coho for trollermen this year
April 5, 1974

will mean that they must make do with some other kind of fishing, so they are going into netting as well.
I am sure that the Canadian ease for a better deal with the Americans could be made if we were united ourselves. On the one side, we have the very strong United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union working for fishing companies which are in many cases merely subsidiaries of American fishing companies. This is a strong, tough union that has done a lot for its members. Also on the Canadian side we have the Pacific Troller's Association which is the epitome of what members of this House like to refer to as the small businessman. They own their own boats, earn their own living, work hard, and make good money. I have never met a fisherman in either of these conflicting camps that I did not like. There is something about fishing, I believe, that brings out the best in men and they are all good Canadians but it is like saying that the Catholics and the Protestants in Ireland are all good Irishmen, but you cannot bring them together. Until the day comes when the trollermen and the Allied Workers Union can find a way to work together there will be difficulties when working with the Americans. I see no hope of agreement in the near future. The leadership and the psychology of these two organizations is simply too dissimilar.
As to the future of fishing on the west coast, I think we are going to have to catch more of other species than salmon. The salmon is a wonderful fish for eating but we have been forced to realize that there are other fish in the sea, those that are referred to as groundfish on the east coast and as bottomfish on the west coast. This will require changes in our fishing fleet. While the modification and conversion is welcome I hope it will not cut down on the amount of construction permitted under the Fisheries Development Act.
We expect to do more fishing in the open seas off the west coast of Vancouver Island and the Queen Charlottes. In this regard it might be of interest to delineate my party's policy. We believe that other states may only fish within our territorial limits with Canada's permission. We would, if elected, expand the coastguard and increase its mandate. In co-operation with the Department of Fisheries, it could provide adequate surveillance over marine resource areas. This would be aimed at protecting the rights of our fishermen and others at sea in Canadian waters.
I do not want to take up a great deal of time, Mr. Speaker, as I know other members wish to speak on this subject. I am pleased to see an amendment, late as it is, which will help us on the west coast. To that degree, I am thankful for it and hope we will be able to make good use of it in the near future.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate on a bill which will provide subsidies to fishermen for the conversion and modification of fishing vessels. No one can quarrel with the merits of the bill because it should allow fishermen to diversify their activity, to take advantage of other species and, hopefully, it should increase their income.
I say "should", Mr. Speaker, because over the past few years we have had to introduce many amendments to
Fisheries Development Act
programs which could be of benefit to fishermen but, I am sorry to say, while the over-all particular policy sounds good, the small print in the regulations never reaches the fisherman until he applies for the subsidy. As is usual, with many good programs, it confuses and discourages him that he cannot meet the criteria, nor can he afford it. This new program permits the fisheries service to make payments to vessel owners in the amount of 35 per cent of the cost of an authorized conversion or modification to an existing vessel. This is fine, but we should look at what can happen and note the lack of co-ordination of fisheries policy. Even though it is well intentioned, it is a helter skelter of ad hoc policy which confuses the fishermen and everyone interested in it.
For example, on June 22, the minister announced a reduction in the size of vessels on which subsidies would be given from 45 feet to 35 feet. Naturally, this was welcome news but the announcement went on to say that the program was in response to increased demand for new fishing vessels suitable for inshore fishermen. The minister announced that more than $100 million would be invested over the next two years. That was in June, 1973. He indicated that about 50 large offshore craft and more than 500 boats under 75 feet were being planned or projected and approximately 150 fishing boats between 35 feet and 45 feet were expected to be built under the extended subsidy plan. With even greater fanfare, the minister announced that this unprecedented investment in fishing vessels reflected the strong optimism of the Canadian industry in the future of our fisheries, and that everything pointed to expansion of our fish catches. He was inviting fishermen to go out and catch all the fish available, because the price was better and the government was going to provide the subsidies.
What happened less than two months later, Mr. Speaker? The minister announced a three-months freeze on construction subsidies available for craft of 35 feet to 75 feet. Apparently current applications for vessels already exceeded the funds allocated for the purpose. They had to control the development of the fleets and avoid short term over-capitalization which would dilute the benefits that the fishermen would otherwise have gained from increased catches. This occurred just two months after this announcement of $100 million, which was never touched. After announcing that he wanted everyone to build boats, and, after altering the subsidy to include vessels of 35 feet, just two months later he put a freeze on it. I say "only two months" but, on the one hand, the minister says they are prepared to spend $35 million in subsidies to get more boats in the water, while on the other hand he puts a freeze on the subsidies because there are too many boats and the fishery must be controlled. This is what is referred to as the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing!
Three months later the minister announced a new fishing fleet development policy to match fleet size to fish stocks by introducing a more selective subsidy program for vessel construction. He was now to consult with the industry, the provincial governments and the fishermen to establish a new licensing control program. In other words, now he has decided he will have to license boats so there will not be too many fishing in the various areas. This is fine, but we should not confuse the fishermen who do not
1204

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
hear about these wonderful announcements until the poor member of parliament has to go to the region and make excuses for their not knowing about it.
There have been three announcements within a period of five months, each contradicting the others. I took it upon myself to travel the length of my riding, a distance of 400 miles, to check with the fishermen. Only one community that I visited had been consulted. Not one fisherman knew what I was talking about, because there was no communication except with those they say they are communicating with and to whom they wish to provide explanations concerning what they are doing. But the fishermen do not know what is going on.
Many other good programs have been announced since I have been here. There is a program, for example, to provide 50 per cent forgiveness grants for the provision of ice-making facilities and boats. This is a good program, but I still have not seen any results nor have I heard from any of the fishermen about it with the exception of the ones I met to tell them about the program. I do not know of anyone who has received benefits from this program. I hope the minister will see that information about the program is passed on to the fishermen.
The statistics in respect of this program to provide ice-making facilities show that $9 million worth of additional equipment is required across Canada and that some 370 locations have been identified. I am wondering if anyone thought about the type of facilities that are already provided in which to house ice-making facilities which are so badly required. Everybody realizes that the fish and its classification deteriorates without ice facilities. I am sure everybody realizes that this is a good program. But where is it? Who is it directed to? It certainly is not directed to my district of the province of Newfoundland. I would be very glad if somebody could tell me that it has been directed there, if my information should be incorrect. I would like to know, as my colleague the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) asked, how much money has been directed toward this end. I am sure the minister can provide that information for us.
Another contradiction relates to the particular program we are talking about today, subsidies for conversion and modification of boats. Almost at the same time as the announcement for the subsidy was made, another announcement came from the minister's office indicating there is a new program to improve fish quality and the vessels of the inshore and midshore fisheries. So all he is doing is providing a subsidy, on the one hand, of 35 per cent and at the same time contradicting the policy, and hurting the fishermen who want to take advantage of it, by issuing instructions under the fish inspection regulations, which take up about 13 pages and seven schedules, effective April 1, 1975. The fishermen will have to comply with all these regulations. In other words, what he is saying is that all the boats built before the direction from the Department of Fisheries will have to be built all over again, so the 35 per cent subsidy is not enough.
The fisherman will be further discouraged and will not be able to take advantage of this subsidy. As two of my colleagues said, the subsidy either will have to be

increased to 50 per cent or there will have to be immediate consultation with the provinces in an effort to have them add to the subsidy, as they do now under the fishing boat building program. I hope this will be treated as a reasonable request. We all agree that the fishermen need programs, but for some reason or other the government forgets where the priorities are. There is no point in a fisherman improving his boat or improving the facilities unless he has a proper place to house his boat, proper harbour facilities and a place where he has protection for his crew and his real estate-which, of course, is his boat.
In the six years I have been here I have made many requests in respect of harbour facilities. I am sure all members representing the fishery were happy when the minister announced that he was taking over the responsibility for small craft harbours from the Department of Public Works. We were happy about this announcement because the Department of Fisheries is more closely allied to the fishery activity itself and has a larger budget for this purpose. Every time we made a request of the Department of Public Works for a harbour facility we received the familiar "thank you for your interest" letter. The department would send out an investigation team. It would do this about 12 times a year, at 12 places. Then a letter would come back saying, "Thank you for your interest. We have investigated the matter, but unfortunately we do not have enough funds available and therefore we must defer the project for another year."
We thought our frustration in this regard had been overcome, but now when we apply to the Department of the Environment the story is the same; we are told there is a lack of funds and that the project must be deferred for another year. The department does not seem to realize that the fishing industry will never get a proper start unless the fishing vessels are protected. I hesitate to mention parochial names, but there are many areas in my district which have been investigated, at a cost of thousands of dollars, for the purpose of opening up the whole area to make available its marine resources. The end result in each case, however, has been studies, task forces, reviews and resource studies, again to the frustration of the fishermen until they threaten now to open harbours themselves, to the detriment of Canada. This is the type of attitude which prevails. The government pays only lip service to these problems of the fishermen in the form of putting something on paper to the effect that the fishermen will be consulted and that an advisory committee will be set up, but the people who form the advisory committee never see anybody from that time on.
One of the fundamental bases of freedom of the fisheries is the need for protection from foreign draggers. Until this famous Law of the Sea conference comes about-I am sure everybody has heard about this so often that there is much frustration about it-Canada must provide an adequate surveillance and rescue capability. This is available through the Department of National Defence. This is another very important and basic phase of the fishing operation. Before we can introduce programs and permit the fishermen to take advantage of them, they must have a boat and they must have protection from the foreign draggers which are allowed to come in, rape our shores and take away the livelihood our fishermen have depended upon for hundreds of years.
April 5, 1974

The other day I made a representation to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). I was very pleased that he announced to the air reserve squadron of Canada that he would give it a more important role in becoming more allied with the duties of the regular force. He would double the force. He would provide them with regular force equipment and planes, and they would take a more active role in the Canadian forces. I can see no better way of implementing an increase in the strength of that force than by the formation of a squadron in eastern Canada with part of it located in Newfoundland which has all the hardware, hangars, fuel tank capability and is a good source of recruitment so that members of the force could take part in the air surveillance which is so badly required. He said, in answer to my question, that he would seriously consider this, and I hope it will be a decision which will help the fishing industry in Newfoundland.
I should like to point out to hon. members the presence in the gallery of the new chairman of the saltfish corporation, Mr. Bradbury, who has been with the Department of Fisheries and has helped in every possible way. Another thing the minister should realize is that in view of the high price of saltfish and the lack of attention paid by fishermen to salting fish, fishermen could be encouraged to take a more active part in this industry which could give them a good livelihood. This points out the need for basic facilities which they do not have at present. By salting fresh fish, fishermen can get rid of their catch quicker and thus avoid spoilage. I hope that when Mr. Bradbury takes over his duties, if he has not already done so, he will recognize this fact and will provide the necessary funds and the proper processing facilities to salt fish, a product which Newfoundlanders know better than anyone else and which could bring them an advantage in fisheries.
Another problem which exists now with the change in government is the lack of co-ordination between the federal and provincial governments. I wish you could see, Mr. Speaker, some of the letters that I receive. I could give you an example. It took me seven months to find out from both levels of government which of them was responsible in a certain case. This would make you frustrated, too. There were seven months of correspondence and inspections, of delegating responsibility to another level of government, and then that level of government after investigating the case hands the problem back and says it is not a provincial but a federal matter.
I should like to refer to the time when there was a Liberal government in Newfoundland and the then premier advised all fishermen to burn their boats. This was probably the poorest advice ever given to any citizens of Canada, as far as I have heard or read. Here we are, with the fishing industry at its peak, the price of fish never having been as high and the income derived from fishing never better-but it is the basic needs of fishermen that must be met to allow them to take advantage of the improved situation after years of hardship when prices were at 3.5 cents to 4 cents.
The minister should stop announcing programs every few days. Instead, he should try to consolidate the existing programs. There is the fisheries improvement loans pro-
Fisheries Development Act
gram under which fishermen who have prospects can go to the bank and obtain a loan. The various levels of government should get together and define their responsibilities with a view to establishing a simple policy that fishermen could understand and that would be to their benefit.
I have no quarrel with the bill as introduced. As I said earlier, the new legislation should provide fishermen with some benefits, if dealt with properly and in a common sense manner. I have no hesitation in indicating my support for the bill before us.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, we are about to give second reading to a bill entitled an act to amend the Fisheries Development Act which stands in the name of the Minister of Fisheries for Canada (Mr. Davis). I suppose the very obvious question to ask is: Where is the Minister of Fisheries for Canada? I am asking that question because he is not in his seat at present. My next question is: Where is the minister's parliamentary secretary? Quite frankly, as I look across the chamber I cannot see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries. I assume that someone over there is getting ready to wind up this debate on second reading, whenever it comes to that point.
I am very pleased to see that we have on the government side such leading authorities on fisheries as the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner). I see he is very busy taking notes over there, so perhaps he is getting ready to reply. Or could it be that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang), who is a leading authority on a number of subjects, so that it would not be too difficult for him to move from wheat to fish, will be the minister to wind up the debate? I thought for a little while that it might be the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who would speak at the end of the debate. He has been in the House for part of the time and, as all members of the House are aware, he has recently been branching out and becoming a leading authority and spokesman for the government on such diverse matters as the storage and purchase of oil. I was rather hoping he would be the one to wind up this debate.
I also see the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) sitting over there, smiling. I do not know whether he considers himself to be an authority on fisheries in Canada. Sometimes he appears to be aware of some of the financial problems of fishermen, and since this bill involves money I can say quite honestly that I am glad to see he is here. Perhaps he will respond on behalf of the absent Minister of Fisheries to close the debate.
The program that has been the subject matter of most of the discussion by members who have participated in this debate, namely, the program of grants for the construction of smaller fishing vessels, has not been of great consequence on the west coast of Canada. Some hon. members will recall that for a number of years we had a program which provided assistance for the construction of small fishing vessels without the benefit of the Fisheries Development Act. It was operated under authority granted to the government through the provision of certain funds in the estimates. But a few years ago-not all that long ago- the Minister of Fisheries announced with great fanfare that he thought the program should have a proper statutory framework, and that in order to regularize it and expand the scope of the department's activities and the

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
financial backing of the government to assist in the development of the fisheries industry we should have a Fisheries Development Act.
Members who were on the committee will recall that we broadened the program to include things other than the construction of fishing-vessels. Not very long before that we had expanded the act so that it would include ice-making plants, fish-chilling facilities, and so on. I am happy to report that there is some interest on the Pacific coast in that new aspect of the act. I think applications are in the course of development for construction of additional icemaking equipment and storage equipment, which may assist in having our fishery's catch landed, processed and delivered to the consumers' tables in better condition than has occasionally been the case in the past. That is all to the good, Mr. Speaker; but as some hon. members have pointed out, every so often we are asked to give our blessing to a proposal, in statutory form, for some great new program. Sometimes we accept proposals with considerable enthusiasm.
My recollection is that members representing Atlantic coast constituencies were enthusiastic about the announcement concerning the Fisheries Development Act. They said it had particular implications for their inshore and mid water fishermen. Yet today we heard reports which indicate that when we get right down to the place where the fishermen are, not very much has happened as yet and the fishermen are still living in hope of seeing some practical developments flow out of the legislation that we passed.
Now we are being asked to expand the Fisheries Development Act to cover programs to assist in modifying and converting existing fishing vessels. On the face of it, I have no hesitation at all in saying that I am prepared to support this concept in the legislation because it is necessary, if the minister is going to move, particularly on the Atlantic coast, to require higher construction standards for fishing vessels so that there be some enabling legislation whereby the regulations which he is so freely tossing out do not become increasingly impossible for the fishermen to live with.
So far as the Pacific coast is concerned, I have said that this program up until now has been of very little practical consequence. The simple explanation for this is that our really major fishery on the Pacific coast is the salmon fishing industry. From the outset of the small fishing vessel assistance program, the salmon fishing industry of British Columbia has been ruled ineligible to participate in it on the ground that we had too many salmon fishing vessels in the water and it would not be proper for the parliament of Canada to take steps to encourage the construction of more. It may be pertinent at this point to remind the House that, far from having special programs to assist in the construction of fishing vessels for the salmon industry, in effect we have had a program to buy out fishing vessels, something which is a complete reversal of the import of this legislation. We have had what is known as the buy-back program.
While on the one hand we have been putting money into grants to assist in the construction of fishing vessels, on

the other hand, in my part of the world primarily, we have been putting money into the pot to get fishing vessels out of the fishing industry. Both these developments may be necessary, and in some respects desirable-although the salmon fishermen of British Columbia would tell you that most of the money for the buy-back program comes out of their pockets. It is a sort of subsidy in reverse. In effect, they are subsidizing themselves to get fishermen out of the industry. This is worth mentioning in light of the experience that has just been recounted to us, where shortly after we passed legislation expanding the program for fishing vessel construction on the Atlantic coast the minister announced a freeze on the granting of moneys until a complete review was undertaken of the approach that was planned.
The fact is that every so often the Minister of Fisheries talks about great, unexploited fisheries which we are not utilizing to the full on a sustained yield basis. Then he suddenly discovers that with the kind of technology available to Canadian fishermen or, as is more frequently the case, available to foreign fishermen on the Atlantic coast, the fishery that has been underexploited becomes overexploited. I would agree that there must be some flexible application of various programs in the light of certain circumstances, but it is pretty difficult for individual fishermen to make rational plans to commit funds for the construction, improvement or conversion of a fishing vessel, funds which may be the principal investment of their lifetime, when they do not know from one week to the next whether a new edict will come out saying they can no longer participate in that particular fishery. For that reason alone, fishermen have every right to be concerned that when we pass a law there will be a realistic application of it. I hope that kind of application will be given to the present proposal to extend assistance with respect to the modification and conversion of fishing vessels.
One question in my mind that ought to be answered concerns whether this part of the program will be open to the west coast salmon industry. I have already indicated that west coast salmon fishing vessels have never been eligible for grants under this program. I am not basically quarrelling with that, but just as is the case on the east coast, so also on the west coast increasing emphasis is being placed upon having the type of vessels which will ensure that catches arrive at shore in good condition. This has a particular application in respect of our west coast salmon fishing industry. Some of the developments that have taken place recently require quite expensive installations in a modern salmon fishing vessel to preserve the quality of the fish and to increase the efficiency of the fishermen by installing proper refrigeration so he can stay out longer before returning to port with his catch.
That really is the only direct question in relation to the west coast fishery that comes to my mind. The questions which were asked by other hon. members from the Atlantic coast certainly deserve to be answered also. Perhaps I should also say that the questions raised by my colleagues, the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) and the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) about the application of this program to the freshwater fisheries of Canada are also particularly relevant.
April 5, 1974

As I recall from our committee discussions, the Minister of Fisheries has said that these programs are available to those engaged in the inland fisheries. This question was raised partly because jurisdiction over fisheries management on the prairies, in Ontario and in the territories has not been vested directly in the Department of Fisheries but has been delegated to provincial authorities for purposes of administration. For a long time I have thought that because of that particular administrative arrangement the federal Department of Fisheries has not paid as much attention to the potential development of our inland fisheries as it might have done.
One of the main considerations which must be borne in mind when one thinks of the potential of the fisheries industry in Canada is this: because of our geographic extent and because many parts of the country are far from the sea where fishing is traditionally carried on, it is difficult to transport fish to places far from where it is caught and to make sure it arrives in good condition. Fish, unlike beef, does not improve with hanging: if it is not handled carefully it deteriorates quickly. Thus, in the interest of providing quality, attractive, high protein food for Canadian consumers, fisheries resources should be developed as closely as possible to centres of population.
What I have to say in this connection has particular application to the freshwater inland fisheries of Canada. This problem was given major attention at the federal-provincial fisheries conference held in Ottawa in 1964. The governments of the three prairie provinces showed their interest by attending the conference. Ministers of those three governments were prepared to come to grips with the policy issues involved. The result of the conference was the establishment of the Freshwater Fisheries Marketing Board. That board, unfortunately, got off to a bad start. I do not know if our fisheries committee has received the answer as to how and why this happened, but it became very apparent that poor management people were put in charge of the board in its initial stages. The resulting setback was most unfortunate for the welfare of fishermen of inland areas. Hopefully, steps are under way to rectify that situation. From my assessment, I still think the idea was sound; I say this on the basis of facts which were brought forward when the formal proposal was made to establish this marketing board.
There is a fair potential for developing a freshwater fish market domestically and in the central parts of the country to the south. There is a fair potential, therefore, for an export market. For these reasons, I feel that the Minister of Fisheries should pay attention to the development of the industry so that it meets its potential. This bill is important in connection with assistance for the construction and modification of existing vessels, that is to say, existing vessels which must be improved and brought up to standard. It is also important for providing vessels with equipment which will enable them to preserve fish. The minister should also see how the program can best be applied to the development of fisheries in the freshwater fishing areas of Canada. I think I have said what needs to be said on this bill on second reading. I await with interest the response of the government when this debate is to close.
Fisheries Development Act


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to speak no longer than thirty seconds.
The purpose of the bill we are studying is to amend the Fisheries Development Act. The whole problem is to add four words to the existing act. This has been suggested last fall, when we were studying Bill C-4 during the first session of the 29th Parliament.
What we have said since eleven o'clock this morning is 90 per cent repetition of the debates we have had in committee on the 1974-75 estimates and during the study of this bill, during the first session.
As all other members, I would like to see this bill adopted by the House today, to allow the fishermen from Gaspesie and from all over the country to take advantage of the amendment, this summer.
For this very reason, Mr. Speaker, I ask that the bill be referred immediately to the Committee of the Whole so that it may be adopted after third reading and submitted to the Senate.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am not usually loquacious, nor is it usual for me to take part in a debate unless I feel I have something important to say. I presume, therefore, that when I resume my seat the House will be in the position to give this bill second reading. Perhaps hon. members may then be inclined to proceed to private members' hour.
As the previous speaker said, this is a small amendment to the act which was amended about a year ago. The act relates to the provision of grants for cold storage and other facilities which would preserve the quality of fish products and would improve the harvesting of the living resources of the sea. This bill is a further small amendment, to assist in the modification of fishing vessels as well as in their construction. Simple amendments such as this reflect fairly important trends in the industry. For example, it is now recognized that fish stocks, fishery resources, are no longer limitless. They never were. Until fairly recently many thought that such resources were limitless, that no matter how many fish you took from the sea, there were always more. Now we realize that fish stocks are limited. Some of them are overexploited while others have potential which is not being exploited at the present time.
In situations of that sort, in some cases it is necessary and desirable that fishing vessels which have been designed for a particular type of fishery be modified to take part in the exploitation of a different resource. This happens from time to time. There is also the necessity of modernizing fishing boats so that the catch can be preserved more efficiently and to eliminate the rather large waste experienced in the fishing industry through the quality of the catch deteriorating before landing. This is another important recognition. We must exploit our resources in a way that is not wasteful. We must develop methods of catching and processing stocks of fish used for human food.

April 5, 1974
Fisheries Development Act
We in North America have been very slow to move away from the original pioneer attitude where it was thought that the bounty of nature was almost unlimited and we could be very prodigal and wasteful in its exploitation. We are now learning, none too soon, that that is not the case. We must exploit these living resources carefully in order to maximize their use and minimize damage to them so there will be a continuous resource. Our renewable resources must be husbanded and harvested in the best possible way.
We must not lose sight of the fact that the fisheries on the east coast are chiefly carried on by people who settled there historically for the purpose of making their living in that way. There is an important sociological aspect to this question. The Department of Fisheries should be extremely careful in administering this and other acts so that the good sense of the fishermen can be part of the input into every new course of action taken by the government. In this connection there is dire need for improvement to small boat harbours, especially those in eastern Canada. I and many inshore fishermen are rather disappointed at the snail's pace at which this is taking place, because small boat harbours have been starved of funds for a number of years. This situation should be rectified as speedily as possible.
I have only one further comment to make, Mr. Speaker. I hope that when this amendment is being administered, it will be administered jointly with the provincial governments concerned in the hope that they will augment the grants made to the fishermen concerned. When one is modifying a boat rather than building a new one, he can invest quite a lot of money without increasing the boat's capital worth. Therefore, I think it is necessary for the aid to apply to a higher percentage of such cost. As far as I can see, no provision is made for such a percentage increase in this bill, but I hope that jointly with the provincial governments a way can be found to increase where necessary the assistance as a percentage of the over-all cost so that the fisherman's share will not be so high. Otherwise, I doubt whether desirable modifications will ever be made to some fishing craft.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Davis) in connection with this bill. Hon. members may have forgotten-this brings me back to an old pastime, rather than breaking completely new ground-that some five years ago I had the responsibility of piloting through the House the bill which created the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation; so I am at least back in the business once again.
I was a little disappointed to hear the comments of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) regarding the absence of the minister and his parliamentary secretary. As hon. members know, quite often the business before the House on a particular afternoon-and I think it is true in this case-is as much arranged to suit the convenience and wishes of members of other parties as it is to suit the wishes of the government. That is sometimes done even though the minister is not available, if the opposition have strong wishes in this regard. It is only fair to observe that this is often the case. Therefore, remarks about absences of members are a little ill-received. In this

particular case the Minister of Fisheries is on his way to address the Pipeline Contractors' Association, and the parliamentary secretary is representing his minister at the third international environment conference in Kenya. As hon. members will realize, they are properly about the business of the Department of the Environment and Fisheries and for that reason cannot be here.
I will try very briefly to answer at least a few of the relevant questions raised by hon. members who roamed a little over other subjects in the field of fisheries. In answer to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), the department is moving forward with its quality improvement programs. In the 1974-75 estimates there is provision for a program for fish-chilling and icing which is national in scope. It is, therefore, part of the over-all program. I am happy to tell the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) that if a British Columbia fisherman has a vessel which can be converted for use in an area of fisheries that is underutilized, he can presumably qualify for assistance under this program.
The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Carter) raised a couple of questions about the nature of the program. Basically, the answer is that the regulations which will be established under the act will allow for some of the matters about which he is concerned, such as improving the engines of fishing craft. The hon. member for St. John's West also mentioned an upper limit. While at this point in time no upper limit has been set, this likely will be done in connection with the regulations which are being drafted. It is probably undesirable to make this an open-ended program, but that matter has not been finally determined: the regulations have not yet been drafted.
I was very pleased to hear the suggestion of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean) that we might now proceed with second reading of this bill and speed its progress through the House so that this amendment, with its own important significance, can become a part of our law.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the House is ready for the question, the Chair will proceed to put it. Earlier today the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Nesdoly) suggested, on a point of order, that the bill be considered in committee of the whole rather than being referred to the standing committee. This, of course, would require unaminous consent. If there were unanimous consent, the motion would be varied.


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, speaking for the official opposition, we would be agreeable to that. We are anxious to see the matter finalized as quickly as possible.


Mr. Knight:: Mr. Speaker, if the bill is put to the committee of the whole and given third reading I assume it will be done on the basis that we have had all the debate necessary and it will be passed right through the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Having led off the debate for the official opposition on this measure, may I say we are prepared to give the bill third reading at this time in order that the benefits which could accrue to fishermen and processors
April 5, 1974

in Canada might be received at an earlier date than would be the case if passage were delayed.


Otto Emil Lang: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I say I am very pleased with the co-operation shown and the welcome given to this change in the law.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The Minister of Justice having closed the debate in such a capable fashion, may I say we shall be pleased to see it done in this way.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall the order be varied accordingly and the bill referred to committee of the whole?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, I was about to suggest that we adjourn. I simply say that this shows what we can do, through co-operation, in passing legislation when certain members of parliament are not here to mess things up.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather it is the wish of the House that the Chair should call it four o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the next 60 minutes we shall proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper. The understanding of the Chair is that Bill No. C-107, standing in the name of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) is the measure we shall proceed with for the next 60 minutes. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain) moved: that Bill C-107, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the spirit of co-operation which is so evident in the chamber will be continued through the remaining 57 minutes and allow this bill to make satisfactory progress. Bill C-107 proposes to clear up or to add force to one of the provisions in Bill C-203, to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Broadcasting Act and various other pieces of legislation.
Canada Elections Act
Bill C-203, the House will remember, was passed by this House and adopted on January 4 after an extensive amount of work in committee by members of all parties. I think all of us who had the opportunity to work on this bill at the committee stage and take part in the discussions in the House recognized that the bill which was produced, Bill C-203, is an imperfect bill although much less imperfect than the law it replaced and much less imperfect than the bill as originally put forward. There are, however, some very clear faults in the election expenses legislation which was adopted by the House earlier this year. For example, in the provision for contributions to constituency associations there is no $100 limit, which means, in effect, that there would have to be an accounting for every membership which is purchased and for every raffle ticket which is sold by a constituency association-for every dollar or 50-cent expenditure of that kind. I do not think this is what parliament intended, but that is in the law.
Parties are required to specify days on which they intend to advertise via the electronic media some months or even years in advance of the election date. This presents an obvious difficulty. The fiscal year to be followed by the various parties is not spelled out. This will create difficulty when comparing periods which should be comparable. The requirement that candidates should break down the expenditures they incur is probably insufficient. The language of the bill is so broad that a number of interpretations could be placed upon it. All these shortcomings could cause difficulty later for individual members of this House and for the parties to which they belong.
However, in my opinion, the major failing of Bill C-203 is its failure to include effective provision for enforcement. There has clearly been a substantial change in the approach to the regulation of election campaigns. Certain limits have been imposed. Publication of contributions and expenditures has been required, real reforms have been undertaken. The major shortcoming is this: there is no provision in the bill as it stands for enforcement, no way to guarantee that the reforms we have written into law will be honoured. Substantial penalties have been established, but those penalties will be useless unless we are determined to enforce them. We have incorporated sharp teeth into the measure but no political party, no candidate, will fear sharp teeth if they know that the jaws will never snap, that the teeth will never bite.
In the absence of the fear of penalties and rigid enforcement, in the absence of any fear that fines will actually be assessed and that punishment in the courts will actually ensue whenever offences are committed, we might as well have no bill at all. If there is no enforcement, then we have acted in vain. If there is no enforcement, then in effect we have no reform of electoral practices in this country.
I think a situation that would undermine entirely the purposes of the election expenses bill, which was laboured over so mightily by so many members in this House last year, would be where one party observed the law rigidly and another did not, and the party that did not observe the law suffered no penalty and the provisions that were written into the act were not enforced. If that were to happen once we would be well along the way to a situation
1210

We find that he quotes the party practice. I emphasize that on no occasion has the function been carried out in the past. Professor Thorburn goes on to say:
Since no enforcement provision was included in the act, and established parties naturally feared retaliation if they or their members should bring an action or lay an information against a member of the other party or parties, virtually nothing was done to compel obedience to the law, and the prohibitions in the act remained essentially unenforced. In addition, since private citizens are not likely to take the trouble and incur the cost of contesting an election suit, this means of initiating an action is virtually inoperative. Also, we have not had any effective organized non-political groups to undertake the responsibility of scrutinizing election activities with a view to initiating legal action in cases of infractions. Finally, no public agency has felt itself responsible nor has been made responsible for prosecuting candidates or others who violate the law on election expenses.
Under such conditions it makes relatively little difference what provisions are made in the law to require scrupulous behaviour of all participants in the election process. If nothing is done to compel obedience to the law, the law is quickly brought into contempt and serves merely as a form of window-dressing to cover a situation which could not be approved of.
Madame Speaker, I think that draws our attention, from a perspective of academic objectivity, to the very serious break in the law which we have not yet been able to reform satisfactorily. So unless we adopt this measure that I propose in Bill C-107, or some similar measure, we could be left without having achieved electoral reform at all, despite our labours.
I recognize the problems of operating an independent commission, problems of additional staff, problems of whether that office or officer will be busy between elections, although, I think it would be helpful to have that kind scrutiny occurring between elections as well as problems of extra costs. But as a parliament I think we have to face the larger problem, if parliament has laboured to pass a reform bill which will not work and if we have an instrument which will not work because it is not likely to be enforced.
As active politicians, all of us go to schools to meet with young people and we are aware of the developing cynicism in the country toward the political process. All of us who care about the future of our political institutions, and indeed about the future of our country, know that our greatest enemy is not another party in this House but it is the simple cynicism that is growing daily, fed perhaps by the forces of Watergate but also by a feeling among Canadians of all ages, that parliament does not mean what it says. When we pass laws designed to achieve reform, we do not go that extra step to ensure that it will be achieved.
I think we have to be conscious of that and of the fact that a great deal of attention has been paid by the public generally, and particularly by the young people of Canada, to Bill C-203 to reform electoral practices which was passed in January. If we have not in fact achieved reform, we are going to be accused of engaging in an empty gesture and of having made a pretense of reform when we knew that what we were writing into the law would not be enforced and therefore there would be no change.
Madame Speaker, I have no particular pride of authorship in Bill C-107. There are provisions in it that perhaps would fall of their own weight.
Canada Elections Act


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I regret to advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Madame Speaker. I hope that the unanimous consent expressed here will be repeated later in the day.
I have no pride of authorship in this bill. My intention was simply to draw the attention of parliament again to the very serious problem which faces us of not having devised effective enforcement procedures to make sure that reforms introduced in the fall of last year will be practiced in future. If there is a disposition in the House to have the subject matter of this bill considered, I will believe that the work I have been trying to do in introducing the bill has been worth while.
In thanking the House for its generosity in giving me these extra few moments, may I express the hope that serious attention will be given by members on all sides of the House to the problem of amending Bill C-203 in respect of election expenses in order to make sure that we have legislation which achieves the reforms that all members wanted and that we have the essential instruments of enforcement to do this.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine-Lakeshore):: Madame Speaker, may I join the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) in expressing the pleasure not only of myself but, I am sure, of all hon. members present in the House at seeing such a remarkable change in the occupant of the Speaker's chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: In supporting Bill C-107, introduced by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, I could perhaps quote him verbatim. I could not find myself more in agreement with anything I have heard in the many debates and the discussions at the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections than with what I heard the hon. member say today. After paying such a compliment it is customary to add the word "but"-and I shall proceed to do that, unfortunately-but with all due respect to the hon. member's intentions, although the recommendations set forth and the proposals made in Bill C-17 are certainly much in order, the sections relating to the electoral districts are rather unfair and contradict one another.
Hon. members interested in pursuing the subject will find that the definition of an "electoral district agent" in section 2 is somewhat contradictory to that referred to in subsection 13.1(4) of the act, which again is contradicted in subsection 13.1(2) (b), so there can be no doubt that the amendment is absolutely necessary. The difficulty is, however, that there are a number of other amendments which one would think will have to be considered. Before going on to that, and in order to make more sense of the problems that I foresee which will require amendments and which I think might be referred to as the need for an
27451-14)

April 5, 1974
Canada Elections Act
omnibus amendment bill on this particular act, we might briefly review some of the provisions of the act and what they were intended to do. We should then look at some other problems raised in Bill C-107 which could possibly be brought before the House by reference to the committee or by presentation of motions.
The bill requires, with respect to political parties, that they must disclose the source and application of their funds or, in more usual terminology, must indicate the source and amounts of all donations where the amounts are in excess of $100, and must indicate their expenses on an annual basis whether they be expenses for an election year or a non-election year. Furthermore, with respect to political parties we have ascertained a limit of 30 cents per voter which would mean that the four major political parties in Canada cannot spend in excess of approximately $4 million each per election. That is a very considerable restriction in view of the kind of expenditures we are familiar with in regard to some of the elections conducted by our neighbour to the south.
Secondly, we have attempted in this bill, and to a large extent have succeeded, although there are more problems to which I should like to refer later, to give the average individual citizen an opportunity to participate in federal politics in a manner never before available to him. If he chooses to make a donation of $100 or less, he will remain anonymous and, in addition, $75 of the $100 will be deductible from his taxes owing. It is not a tax deduction in the usual sense. It is actually a tax credit. It is a direct contribution, if you like, to the federal government system and to parliamentary democracy.
Thirdly, we have to some measure made great strides in restricting expenses of candidates, although the point made by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain is that perhaps we have not gone far enough. I tend to favour a commissioner in the ridings. I suppose that means a policeman, although perhaps that is a nasty word. Whatever we may think of the matter, there certainly is no shortage of members of this House who are familiar with candidates who run some rather strange campaigns. Perhaps it would be a nice idea if we were all subject to the same scrutiny by a well organized commissioner.
We have succeeded in limiting expenditures to $1 for each of the first 15,000 names on the voters' list, 50 cents for each of the next 10,000 names and, finally, 25 cents for every name after those first 25,000. In an average riding this would mean something in the order of $25,000 or $26,000 which the candidate can expend for election purposes. In addition to that-again I will refer back to these sections because there are more problems here-we have created a system by which such a candidate, so long as he obtains 15 per cent of the vote in his riding, will be compensated by the people's money through the federal government to the extent of something like eight cents for the first 25,000 names on the list and six cents for those thereafter. So we are looking, in an average riding of about 50,000 people, at something in the order of $7,500 going back to the candidate who has succeeded in attracting at least 15 per cent of the population.
(Mr. Blaker.]
I might add the personal note that I think 15 per cent is still far too low. It should be higher because it seems to indicate the possibility of candidates who are attracted by the compensation factors of this act. It seems to me there is a very distinct possibility that some candidates may find it financially desirable to put their names on the list only to find themselves with, hopefully, 15 per cent of the vote having spent as little as $5,000 and then to find themselves compensated by the federal government for $7,000 or $8,000 simply because they obtained the required percentage of the vote. For those who win, there are enough financial penalties in becoming a member of parliament without making it particularly attractive to candidates who lose to not win-if that grammar can be used.
In addition, we have provided for the facilities of an auditor. There are more problems in that section in respect of an auditor. I do not think we have defined this properly. However, the act does provide that the liabilities are to be shown. The whole subject of voluntary labour is brought under consideration in the sense that there has been a tendency in the past to use individuals, I think, on a form for compensation but without actually referring to them in the election returns and in the setting forth of the costs of the candidate's election.
There is the whole matter of commercial value. That is another problem which I think may require amendment as well, because there are the different features relating to the cost of an article or its commercial value which raises the matter of wholesale, retail, and so on. We have supplied a whole group of agents who come under the titles of chief agent, electoral district agent, registered agent, and official agent. I suggest that the public will become as confused as most members after they get through with the flock of agents who have been provided. But there they are, and presumably between the official agent for the candidate and the registered agent for the party there is some hope that disclosure of income and expenses can be enforced and, hopefully, we should be able to provide the Canadian public with a much better idea of who is running their elections, and why.
Perhaps at this time I might affirm again to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain the co-operation which existed in the committee during the meetings for hours on end and the picking away at one clause after another. If today the hon. member for Rocky Mountain were to find that his bill in fact is not referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, I certainly would want him to understand that it is with nothing but the greatest respect for the draftsmanship and intentions of his bill that this might happen. It is by coincidence that there seem to be so many other problems that it may be better procedurally to go by way of an omnibus amendment for many of the other areas about which we and others are concerned or, conversely, there may be a reference to the committee on privileges and elections and we can get back at the whole thing again, although I think most members of the committee would not be entirely delighted with that proposition.
I should like to refer simply, for the sake of the record, lest some of these thoughts get lost, to other areas which I think require reconsideration. On the question of the appointment of auditors, both sections 13.3(1) and 62.1(1)
April 5, 1974

define an auditor as a person who normally carries out the duties of an auditor in a province or the province in which the electoral district of the candidate is located. There is, of course, different provincial legislation which defines the practice of accountancy in Canada throughout the various provinces. The expression "who normally carries on the duties of an auditor" leaves much room for disagreement. As the hon. member for Rocky Mountain mentioned earlier, it seems a shame to go to all this trouble to have a workable act only to find that we are not enforcing it properly, and one of the most important sections is that which refers to the auditor and his report. So we might want to look at the question of amending the act in terms of the auditor and his function.
Also under sections 13.3 and 62.1 the requirement of an auditor is to report whether in his opinion the return presents fairly the information contained in the accounting records on which the return is based. In other words, he is saying he has read the records, and the records and the return look similar. But what we would really like the auditor to do, I think, is verify that the candidate or the party has complied with the provisions of the entire elections act. We do not want him simply to read a group of receipts and say, in effect, that the total reads the same as what is shown on the election returns. We want him to go further and say that the candidate has behaved properly, as we expect him to do under the provisions of this act.
Another problem-and this has been discussed up and down the House of Commons, in committee and elsewhere-is that of contributions made directly to a party or to a candidate. This refers to section 13.4 and section 63(2) where there is a requirement in the act for disclosure of the names of the donor where the amount is over $100. The difficulty here is that if one party association makes a contribution, this contribution presumably is the accumulation of all kinds of large and small contributions which have been brought in from the communities. The intention of this act is to provide anonymity to donors, but in the event that the association has made a contribution of an accumulation of small donations, the act would appear to read that the requirement of the candidate is that he ascertain the names of those individuals who made small donations to their party association and make those names public. That was never our intention. In fact, quite the reverse was the case. We wanted to guaranteee the anonymity of people who choose to involve themselves financially in the system of parliamentary democracy.
Another problem-I am not quite sure how we missed this one, because it is so obvious-is that under section 63(1) the candidate must, within two months following the election, submit his returns respecting election expenses. A section in the act immediately preceding 63, that is, section 62(12), provides that all expenses incurred by a candidate in respect of the conduct or management of the election must be paid within 50 days. So we manage to allow a near contradiction to get in, and we should ensure that the report time and the payment time are the same.
In terms of the publication of the auditor's report and the summary of candidates' returns respecting election expenses, members of the committee will remember that it was very much their opinion that candidates' expenses
Canada Elections Act
should be published in the local newspapers. In fact, what has happened is that the law now reads that the candidate, presumably at his own expense-which one would tend to think he would consider an election expense-shall publish his election expenses, and then we provide that the returning officer shall do the same. So unfortunately we have a system in which both the candidate and the returning officer are duplicating one another's expenses and we have not made it perfectly clear whether or not the candidate can deduct the cost of advertising of his election expenses or, rather, make it part of his election expenses bills. I will not go on because there is no end to these problems. However, another area is the question of the destruction of records. We seem to indicate in the act that records can be destroyed, but under the Income Tax Act we say that records must not be destroyed. So there is a conflict in that sense.
In view of all those problems, I wonder whether the hon. member for Rocky Mountain will agree with me that if we do this piecemeal, one private member's bill at a time, we shall be well into the next election-which I understand is very soon, anyway-before we have the bill in good enough shape to run an election. Therefore, it would appear preferable, I suggest with respect, that we gather up all these difficulties and consider them. As hon. members know, various discussions are even now going on with major parties and with the electoral officer with a view to having a look at the act and these problems. Therefore, as I said earlier, I suggest that we hold off reference of Bill C-107 in order that we can bring all these topics together either in one reference to the committee, for discussion, or in one omnibus amendment to be presented.
I will sit down with the repetition of one thought, that I think I speak on behalf of all members on our side who worked on that committee when I say it was very much an all-party effort. To see the hon. member for Rocky Mountain back with a private member's bill so obviously intended to further the spirit of the work that we did is a high commendation to him personally, and a pleasure to those of us on this side who had the opportunity to work with him on the committee. It is with regret that I cannot agree with the hon. member that we should refer this bill today to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say just a few words to express some of my thoughts on this most important matter of the Election Expenses Act and the possibility of abuse which is to be controlled. As hon. members know, the whole idea of an Election Expenses Act was thought for many years to be an impossibility. In fact, in many countries it was considered impossible or very difficult, and I suppose that the reason we brought it to fruition in Canada was the experience in the country to the south of us where they certainly have problems with election expenses the likes of which I do not really think we have in this country.
I think that Bill C-203 is a major piece of reform legislation and the result of a great contribution by the members of the committee of which I was proud to be a member. To give some indication of the complexities with which we had to deal, it is only necessary to note that members of

April 5, 1974
Canada Elections Act
the committee who worked so hard for so many months thought even at the end of their deliberations that the committee would not be able to come up with a piece of legislation. We dealt with more than 160 amendments to the original bill with which we were presented, and I believe we held nearly fifty meetings.
It is, of course, evident to anyone in the House that putting a group of parliamentarians around a table to try to come up with a piece of legislation to effectively control election expenses is a difficult task to say the least. It is like having a lot of backroom lawyers sitting around, each of whom considers himself to be an absolute authority on election expenses. Because, of course, they all had to go through an election successfully and somehow by hook, but not by crook, raise the money to present themselves as candidates.
As one who wound up after the last election owing a great deal of money to the bank, and having found himself to be his largest personal contributor-somebody had to have some confidence in me-I found myself wondering a little when we started our meetings who was going to control the money which I was going to contribute to my own campaign or, should I say, go into debt for, because I am still paying for some of those expenses. I am sure that members of this House can understand why it took us this enormous number of meetings, and, imagine, 160 amendments, some of them so arcane that many of us actually became very knowledgeable about one section of this bill, but there were other parts with which we simply could not keep up because to understand the complexity of this whole piece of legislation was very difficult.
With reference to the suggestion in the bill of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that we considered at length the idea of having a special commissioner to occupy himself with abuses of the Election Expenses Act. I think there is a great deal to be said for that. Frankly, the reasoning- and I think it has a great deal of merit-is the same kind of reasoning that worked in the committee. You see, we have all of these members who for the moment at any rate are successful politicians, watching each other, knowing how the tricks can be done and all of them, as I said, experts on the subject of raising money. I think it was felt that the most effective kind of watchdog you could have in an election campaign, where you could risk having a fairly severe sentence and possibly have your election contested, would be the other candidates who were running against you.
Rather than set up another bureaucracy, another agent of parliament, it was felt-although I am inclined to feel still that the suggestion has a great deal of merit-that the most effective watchdogs keeping an eye on candidates in an election, abusing or running afoul of the Election Expenses Act, would be their opponents. One would presume that they would be watching very carefully for this sort of thing. That rests as a most effective method of enforcing the law. We also recognized when we worked on this act that it would have to do for one election, and that after an election was operated with the legislation there undoubtedly would be need for amendments and reform of it. After seeing how it worked out in action, under fire, we

knew there would undoubtedly be things that would have to be done to make it more effective. But we were faced, and I think are still faced in terms of another agent of parliament, with the problem that it would be premature. We were faced with the fact that we had to get something on paper to work with, and having done that we would then go through an election, find out what did not work in the act and the next parliament would make amendments. I think that was one of the really essential pillars in our thinking and also one of the reasons why we were in fact able to come up with a piece of legislation.
After we settle down to address ourselves to this problem, it was foremost in our minds that we would have to do it again, but at least that we must have something constructive, something to work with that members of parliament in the succeeding parliament would be able to analyze and would listen to the Chief Electoral Officer on how effective it was, having him really as the senior person checking and controlling.
It is for that reason that although I see merit in Bill C-107,1 think it would be premature for us at this moment to consider enacting something that would only complicate a matter already so arcane that it took us nearly 50 meetings, dealing with over 160 amendments, to enact a piece of legislation. I think the hon. member for Rocky Mountain, who had a very positive attitude and who worked very hard in that committee, should be complimented on bringing this bill forward, but I think he is being a little premature.


Mr. Douglas Stewart (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Douglas Stewart: I must say "sorry" to hon. members opposite. Perhaps they will have an opportunity to call "question" in a moment or two, but I hope I will be allowed to carry on for a little while.


Walter David Baker: Is that an undertaking?


William Douglas Stewart: I wish I could give that undertaking, but perhaps there are other hon. members who wish to follow me. However, I will attempt to be brief. By way of general preamble I wish to pay a sincere compliment to the sponsor of the bill for his excellent dissertation in support of Bill C-107. I think the same commentary could be made with respect to the speakers following him, the hon. member for Lachine-Lakeshore (Mr. Blaker) and the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery).
I have what I believe to be a number of relevant comments to put on the record. At least, I hope they will be relevant. I am really not aware of any particular requirement as to the drying out period for printed ink work, nevertheless I would not be surprised if that period in this instance had not yet passed in respect of the Election Expenses Act, chapter 51, Statutes of Canada 1973-74 which, as all hon. members know, was given royal assent on January 14 of this year. Yet, Mr. Speaker, we now have a bill before us which in effect proposes an amendment to section 7 of that act which contains new section 61.1 of the Canada Elections Act. I must suggest, however, with due
April 5, 1974

respect, that the existing new section 61.1 of the Canada Elections Act is much more clear and comprehensible than that proposed in Bill C-107. Of course, there are a number of good reasons why I say this, and if hon. members will bear with me I will attempt to elucidate.
At the outset may I say it is unfortunate that backbench MPs do not have available to them the plethora of experienced draftsmen who are available in government departments. And because we do not, Mr. Speaker, and because our other responsibilities as representatives of the people are indeed onerous, oftentimes we as members understandably fall short in our draftsmanship of other than government bills. To say this is not to do other than commend the hon. member for Rocky Mountain for his valiant attempts to present us with a text which is in all respects relevant.
Having thus complimented the sponsor of the bill, I must nevertheless submit that in considering it I have some difficulty in grasping clearly and concisely what the bill is about and how, if passed, other sections of the act to be amended may be affected. That is to day, our deliberations this afternoon require our concentrated focus on an orderly arrangement of the proposed amendments and demand that we should take into account those consequential amendments to the act as well as the main proposed amended section.
In the present case, in the bill before us I note that the existing new section 61.1 of the Canada Elections Act falls under a new division heading of "Election expenses, official agent and auditor of candidates." The foregoing is consistent with the subsequent sections of the Canada Elections Act and leaves no doubt but that new section 61.1 relates only to the subject of that division. However, the bill before us introduces, in draft proposed 61.1, an entirely new subsection (1) which purports to go far beyond matters dealing only with "Election expenses, official agent and auditor of candidates." Quite apart from the foregoing, the intended subsection, in my submission, deals with matters already contained in other parts of the Canada Elections Act as amended by the Election Expenses Act. Further, proposed new paragraph 61.1(1) (b) has no bearing whatsoever on any of the other subject matters contemplated in new section 61.1.
What I have said so far, Mr. Speaker, all with the greatest respect, relates to a weakness in the orderly drafting and arrangement of the subject matter of the proposal. I reiterate, however, that in the present case-


Paul Yewchuk: Filibuster.


William Douglas Stewart: I might have some part of my speech left over. There is much that is important which can be said another day. If I may to return to serious and relevant comments, in the present case the matter is vital as it leaves this reader in doubt as to the limits of the matter covered, and raises conflicts with other existing provisions of the Canada Elections Act as amended by the Election Expenses Act.
May I now refer to the subject matter covered by the amendments proposed in the bill. The obvious first point is that new subsection 70(4.1) of the Canada Elections Act
Canada Elections Act
as contained in section 11 of the Election Expenses Act already allows a provision for the Chief Electoral Officer to-
-appoint a commissioner whose duties, under the supervision of the Chief Electoral Officer, shall be to ensure that the provisions of this act in regard to election expenses are complied with and enforced.
Are we, then, to have two commissioners, one appointed by the Chief Electoral Officer and one appointed on the nomination of Mr. Speaker? If the answer is affirmative, then surely imponderable conflicts would arise as to the duties of the respective commissioners. The second point which stands out and requires clarification is the fact that a commissioner will be appointed-
-whose duties will be to see to the administration of this act.
The first point which arises is that the existing provisions of subsection 4(1) of the Canada Elections Act lay out the duties of the Chief Electoral Officer. I think it pertinent to quote that subsection, which reads:
(1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall
(a)	exercise general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of elections and enforce on the part of all election officers fairness, impartiality and compliance with the provisions of this act;
(b)	issue to election officers such instructions as from time to time he may deem necessary-


Mr. Deputy Speaker;: Order, please. Earlier the Chair had indicated that for the following 60 minutes we would proceed with private members' business even though we were to begin private members' hour a few minutes ahead of the time provided under the Standing Order. Is it agreed that we consider private members' hour to have expired?


Walter David Baker: No, Mr. Speaker. My understanding of the order which you made was that the hour might begin prior to four o'clock, but there was nothing said about termination. I would not want to miss hearing the prepared research notes presently being read into the record in order to talk out a sound bill. I think the hon. member should be permitted to carry on for just a few more minutes reading into the record notes prepared by the research department of the Liberal Party.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As I recall it, the expression I used was "for the next 60 minutes." However, I will be happy to hear the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Stewart) continuing until five o'clock, the regular time of adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Douglas Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I can well understand the remorse of the hon. member for Grenville-Carle ton (Mr. Baker). If the hon. gentleman wishes to hear me out, I will give him full opportunity. Certainly I would not dispute any ruling of the Chair. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I spent hours in the preparation of this technical presentation. I ask the forebearance of my colleagues. If the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton wishes to hear me-


Walter David Baker: I do. We want to listen.

April 5, 1974
Canada Elections Act


William Douglas Stewart: -I will continue, if the House is disposed so to allow me.


Walter David Baker: Absolutely.


William Douglas Stewart: Thank you very much.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member was dealing with a very serious point.


William Douglas Stewart: My colleague from Rocky Mountain-this is not related to the subject matter before us-has national parks in his riding which are second in rank only to those in my riding, the great parks of Yoho, Glacier, Mount Revelstoke and Kootenay.
Returning to the topic before us, I believe I was reciting to hon. members subsection 4(1) of the Canada Elections Act. Perhaps I could refer members to it for their own edification. They can find it in the Revised Statutes. They will note, no doubt, that there is a direct conflict between the duties of the commissioner, who must see to the administration of this act, and the statutory responsibility now imposed on the Chief Electoral Officer, who exercises general direction and supervision over the administrative conduct of elections.
Admittedly, it might be argued that the duties proposed for the commissioner to see to the administration of this act are broader and encompass more than the Chief Electoral Officer's supervision over the administrative conduct of elections. However, I suggest to members that the obvious answer to the argument regarding the conduct of elections is what the Canada Elections Act is all about. Then I wish to point out to hon. members-


Some hon. Members:: Seven more seconds to go. Six more.


William Douglas Stewart: -that a very serious conflict arises-


Some hon. Members:: Four seconds. Three seconds.


William Douglas Stewart: -in respect of proposed new clauses-


Some hon. Members:: Two seconds. One second.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour and five minutes provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, this House accordingly stands adjourned until Monday next at two o'clock.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 8, 1974