1977-06-28

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, concerning our proceedings between now and one o'clock. Since a number of members will be leaving for the funeral of our late colleague I think it would be agreeable, if any votes arise during the course of debate this morning, to defer them until later in the day or to a commonly agreed on time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill S-3 to amend the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Mr. Clarke:: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I am out of order. Are we going to the debate now?


Mr. Speaker:: The debate will be on the third reading motion which I will now put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, the debate on this bill on second reading was very short. Referring
to the remarks of the minister at that time, in his closing paragraph he said:
This is a bill of some technical complexity. The Superintendent of Insurance and other officials will be readily available to the committee for the purpose of considering this revision.
I also made a contribution to the debate at that time. There was a short reference from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who simply said:
Mr. Speaker, this 60-page bill is obviously one of such a technical nature that the best place for it to be considered is in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We are therefore prepared to vote for the motion to send the bill to that committee for detailed study.
The reason I mention those remarks is that the bill is indeed complex and did indeed go to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs where it received due consideration. It would have been extremely helpful at this time to have been able to refer to the proceedings of the committee. However, the hearing in the committee took place last week on Monday, June 20, and as yet the proceedings have not been published. In any event, they have not been received by the members of the committee.
There were some amendments put there. I note that the bill will eventually have to be referred back to the other place for the adoption or in any event consideration of the amendments put by the standing committee of this House. The bill received a fairly thorough examination by the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce of the other place. Reference to those sections that are being amended show that there was some concern about the practices that had been in place in the insurance industry.
As I pointed out in an earlier comment, accounting is an art, not a science. Being an accountant myself, I speak with some knowledge of this. Over the years accountants have been practicing their art instead of dealing with things as a science. Therefore, when statements of various insurance companies were produced, they were not always in a form which was easily comparable. It made it difficult for officials who had to deal with reports of insurance companies and the public to know exactly what was comparable.
The accounting profession is always flexible and interested in forward-looking change. The accounting profession was instrumental in putting forth the suggestions which led to the amendments on the reporting practices of insurance companies. I think we can agree wholeheartedly with a practice that will make it easier for officials and the public when considering statements. An interesting feature of the practices followed before was that the more business a new insurance company wrote, the greater the losses shown on its statements because of the regulation that insurance companies could not show big

June 28, 1977
Insurance Companies
losses. In other words, their ratios had to be proper. The companies were actually restricted in the amount of business they could write.
This arose from the fact that the cost of issuing a policy- the sales commissions, advertising and other expenses related to that-had to be written off in the year that the policy was issued, although the income relative to the policy was not reflected until later financial periods. In a sense, that was an unfair treatment. Although they were certainly costs, they were in the nature of capital costs. Other businesses were permitted, and in fact obliged, to set up capital costs and write them off over the period in which the revenue was being earned. The fact that that practice is going to be followed by insurance companies is a good idea.
The bill also makes some changes with regard to the investments insurance companies are permitted. There was not unanimous agreement in the committee that these were necessarily good changes. Four per cent of an insurance company's real estate investments can now be in one real estate project. When you consider that a company can have only 15 per cent of its investments in real estate, then in the case of some big companies four per cent of that 15 per cent can represent a very large project indeed.
I found it questionable as to whether the insurance companies should be allowed to, in effect, compete in the development field. We found that insurance companies, as part of their real estate investments, were in the practice of buying real estate. In order to have a revenue producing asset on their books, they would lease that piece of real estate to a developer. The developer would come up with a plan for putting up a revenue building on that piece of property.
The practice often followed was that when the developer needed a mortgage, he would go back to the same insurance company which owned the land and get a mortgage on the property. The effect of it was that if the developer was very careful in his building, he could actually have cash flow out of the project. After all, he invested no money in the land. Although the mortgage is restricted to 75 per cent of the value of the project, the value is determined before construction begins. If savings can be effected during construction, he can actually cash out of the deal. I know there would be a long term lease as security for the insurance company. However, the policyholders' as well as the shareholders' interests are not being best served by having the insurance companies make such a total kind of investment in revenue real estate.
The Superintendent of Insurance told us that there were margins built in and that he knew of no problems. However, it is within the memory of all members of this House, I am sure, that even on projects where the developer owns the land, the government's own Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation has had some serious problems with projects that have been managed improperly after development. Three come to mind. There is the project in Hamilton which has caused a good deal of problem to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Approximately $7 million of taxpayers' money was lent out, and now CMHC is having to foreclose. The title is in a terrible

mess, and it will take them a long time to get out of it. Then there was the Rochdale fiasco in Toronto, which has been worked out, probably not without some loss. There is also the Quai d'Orsay property in Ottawa, which was mentioned in the House recently, and there are serious problems there.
In committee we were told and forced to accept the fact that this change was a good thing and that it would be going ahead regardless of that. There are no other particular areas we need to consider at this stage of the bill. I should like to repeat that . it was a great inconvenience not to have the minutes of the committee hearings available to us at this time. I am sure there are other matters which my colleagues will put forward.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke) has said, the report of the proceedings of June 20, when this bill was considered in committee, plus the reprinted version of the bill have not reached our offices. I checked ten minutes ago, and they have not turned up. The amendments appear in fragmentary form in the twelfth report of the committee in Votes and Proceedings. There are seven pages of amendments which are frankly meaningless unless related to the bill. They have to be incorporated into the bill before they can mean anything to anyone who wants to find out what changes have been made.
In so far as the House leaders are concerned, this bill should not have appeared at this time, because the material has not been prepared for availability in the House. As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, myself,'and the parliamentary secretary are really the only persons in the House who have any knowledge of the bill. The parliamentary secretary must assume some responsibility for allowing his House leader to propose this piece of legislation for discussion at this time.
Today is June 28, and there is no reason why we should not have had this material available to us.
The other House is awaiting this bill to consider the amendments made to it. The amendments are of a very technical nature, but there is nothing too contentious about them. From a procedural point of view and the handling of business in this House, this bill is an example of just how not to do things. One could put on a filibuster this morning by objecting to the House being asked to proceed on material which is not before it, since there is no printed copy of the bill available to us.
The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra has spoken about some of the information that was gleaned from the superintendent of insurance and his assistants at the time of the committee examination. I do not want to go into that. However, the point I want to stress is the reason for the seven pages of amendments: we are amending two parts of one act and a second act to say the same thing. The insurance industry in this country is governed by the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act and the Foreign Insurance Companies Act. According to Mr. Humphrys, the superintendent of
June 28, 1977

insurance, within two years it will be possible to bring in a Canadian insurance companies act which will cover the operations of all of our insurance companies and will telescope a great amount of legislation into the one act. Therefore, amendments will be much simpler and we will put our insurance industry on a much sounder legislative footing.
The amendments from the Senate, and as they were amended in the committee, will put Canadian insurance companies, and particularly the newer companies, on a much sounder footing. As the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra explained, there are tremendous front-end expenses on the writers of new businesses. The early premiums went to write off these expenses and did not provide any funds for reserve or for investment. This was something which took all members of the committee by surprise, that the bulk of new business written by the insurance industry, whether life, automobile or general insurance, in the early years did not make any profit for the companies. In other words, new business contributed to the annual losses. This has led to a rather paradoxical situation- the more business you do, the more difficult position you are in.
From an investment point of view, there was a demand for large insurance policies in this country and there was no money available to handle the business. That is why, in the main, during the past few years we have seen such a high proportion of the insurance industry, particularly general and commercial insurance and not life, handled by foreign interests. The market was there, but Canadian insurance agencies and brokers had to find money abroad in the general insurance fields.
With these amendments, it will be possible to amortize these front-end expenses over a wider period of time. Hopefully this will put the Canadian insurance industry on a much sounder financial basis.
In conclusion, I hope progress will be made in achieving a uniform Canadian insurance companies act, which should be available for parliament to consider within 18 months to two years time. I should commend these amendments to hon. members so that they can go to the Senate and the bill will be concurred in by the House of Commons.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this is the conclusion of the third reading of this bill, and I want to thank all members for the difficult work they did, particularly in dealing with so many complicated amendments. This is of tremendous importance to the investment community of Canada and therefore of importance to insurance policyholders across the country. I wish also to acknowledge and agree with the sentiments expressed by hon. members opposite having to do with the failure of the committees branch to produce the report which ought really to be before us together with a reprinted bill. It ought to be in our hands as we look at a technical bill of this nature which has been changed so greatly in committee. The explanation I have from the committees branch is that they are overloaded with bills and amendments. Nevertheless, it is regrettable we cannot have the reprinted bill before us.
Scientific Activities


An hon. Member:: Then you should not have scheduled this hearing.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member observes that we should not have scheduled this hearing. But I would point out that hopefully we are close to the recess and that, because of the extent to which the bill has been amended it has to go to the other place again and all this has to be done before the summer recess. So, with my thanks to hon. members for their support 1 hope we can move, now, to third reading.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the amendment made by the Senate to Bill C-26, respecting organization of certain scientific activities of the Government of Canada be read the second time and concurred in.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Can someone on the government side give us a brief explanation of this amendment? It is an amendment made in the Senate and it is very simple-it increases the number on a certain body from three to four and indicates who the fourth person will be. Is this something the Senate thought up itself, or does it arise from an oversight on the part of government which has now been corrected?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this is a minor legal amendment to bring Bill C-26 in line with Bill C-53. When the legislation went to the Senate the bill read:
-three other persons, one each representing and nominated by the Canada Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada . . .
The Senate proposes four persons and reads:
-four other persons, one each representing and nominated by the Canada Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Council, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and the National Research Council of Canada.
That has been proposed by the Senate and accepted by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What the minister has told us is quite obvious from reading the bill and reading the amendment. He has not yet answered my question. Was it an oversight that it was not there in the first place or did Their Honours in the Senate think it up themselves?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1 would say the Senate initiated it.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: I heard the minister mention that this was a legal amendment. I would hope the

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
government would never propose concurrence in an illegal amendment, though under this administration it is always possible. In any event, we have had an opportunity to review the matter and are prepared to let the amendment go.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, amendment read the second time and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: There are three motions before us at the report stage. Motion No. 1, in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), motion No. 2 in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), which appears to be acceptable from a procedural point of view, and motion No. 3 in the name of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). The Chair has some reservations about the regularity of motions one and three and perhaps we could now proceed to a discussion on the procedural aspects.


Mr. Fleming:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that Your Honour is somewhat concerned about the procedural regularity of motion No. 1. I believe the government does support this amendment and, though members on the other side can speak for themselves, that there is agreement generally that 1 should ask for unanimous consent to accept the motion if that would be in order.
The situation is much the same with respect to motion No. 3. I submit that this amendment affects only one clause of Bill C-38 and is narrow in its scope. Moreover, that particular part of the bill has been amended and has been opened up. I know that the amendment is the result of a desire by ail parties, in committee-I am speaking about motion No. 3. There has been a desire expressed by all parties to see it moved and it follows action taken by the minister to accommodate the concern of the provinces.
While I am on my feet may I bring a further amendment to Your Honour's attention? If it is in order, I should like to table copies and seek unanimous consent for its acceptance. I should like to move an additional amendment concerning the question of liability in relation to marine pollution. During the committee sessions, additional amendments were included to provide, hopefully, for recourse by fishermen against loss of income caused by pollution. Unfortunately, we did not differentiate between marine pollution from ships, in respect of which legislative provision already exists and for which a special marine pollution claims fund exists, and land-based pollution,
[Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton).J
the major source in respect of which we were seeking to provide protection for fishermen.
This matter was brought to our attention by the Dominion Marine Association which also recommended that the inclusion of the provision as it presently stands could cause difficulty to the shipping industry when obtaining insurance coverage. In view of this, officials have been working with the Department of Transport and we now have a further revision to propose to Bill C-38, which I feel will clarify these new liability provisions. I would now like to present such a motion with the unanimous consent of the House.
The motion reads as follows:
That Bill C-38 be amended in subclause 7(3) thereof by adding thereto, immediately following line 16 on page 7, the following subsection:
"(10.5) Notwithstanding anything in this section, subsections (10) and
(10.1) do not apply in respect of any deposit of a deleterious substance that,
within the meaning of Part XX of the Canada Shipping Act, constitutes a
discharge of a pollutant caused by or otherwise attributable to a ship."


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to refer to all the amendments listed on pages XII and XIII of today's order paper since I am not too certain that it would be in order to speak to them at this time. Some of my colleagues have indicated their intention to speak on motions Nos. 1 and 2 however, and if I am in order I should like to confine my remarks to motion No. 3. Is that satisfactory?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We ought to regularize the proceedings a little bit. There has been some indication of positions to be taken in respect of these four motions. I wonder if we ought not to take them one at a time and sort out the position on each.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary has asked for the consent of the House to move an additional motion. That could be done only with unanimous consent, of course, and it may be appropriate to find out now whether there is unanimous consent before we go to consideration of the other motions in order that members might prepare themselves for discussion on the motion knowing that the House has given consent that it be moved.
The House is being asked now only to give consent to the moving of the motion by the parliamentary secretary. Consequential upon that amendment would be an editorial change to the French text that the hon. parliamentary secretary just read to the House, as follows:
June 28, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is not unanimous consent.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to be clear. 1 am not withholding unanimous consent on the indication of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). It is on the indication of another hon. member that unanimous consent is not forthcoming and therefore the motion cannot be put at this time.
The hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) on a point of order.


Mr. Jones:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The parliamentary secretary made his point clear this morning. He went to other members of the House concerned with this particular bill but was not courteous enough to come to me. I do not see how 1 can be courteous enough to give unanimous consent under the circumstances.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize. Unfortunately, I did not know until just before a series of events last night that this bill would come up this morning. At that time I tried to contact several members and it is my fault that I did not contact the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones). I sincerely apologize for it.


Leonard C. Jones: Mr. Speaker, with that explanation I am prepared to give consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanai-mo-Cowichan-The Islands on a point of order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to give unanimous consent to have the motion introduced but I do not think we should proceed to debate it. 1 think it should be placed in numerical order and be the fourth item dealt with. In the meantime, perhaps the parliamentary secretary could provide a copy for each party if not each member so that we can look at it before we discuss it. Otherwise, we have no objection.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My idea in disposing of the introduction of the motion upon unanimous consent first was that while the other motions are being considered, that very thing could take place and I am sure it will. Therefore, the
Fisheries Act
motion is now moved by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Fleming) and seconded by Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan) and will form part of our deliberations at report stage. Perhaps communications can take place concerning the debate that will follow after the first three motions have been discussed.
Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador reads:
That Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be amended by deleting Clause 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"3. Sections 10 to 12 of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"10. No one shall with boat or vessel or in any other way during the time of fishing for seals knowingly or wilfully disturb, impede or interfere with any seal fishery or prevent or impede the shoals of seals from coming into such fishery or knowingly or wilfully frighten such shoals.
11. Disputes between occupiers of seal fisheries concerning limits and the method of fishing or setting nets shall be decided summarily by any fishery officer or justice of the peace, by whom arbitrators may be appointed to assess damages and any damages so assessed or arising out of a repetition or continuance of the difficulty ordered to be remedied may be levied under the warrant of any justice of the peace."
There has been some preliminary indication of procedural concern with motion No. 1 in that it goes beyond the scope of the bill. The motion seeks to amend two sections of the existing Act not mentioned in the bill, namely sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act. In addition, motion No. 1 appears to be irrelevant to Clause 3 of the bill which prohibits the catching of certain categories of fish. The motion deals with the interference in the seal fishery and provides a method of settlement of disputes arising therefrom. However, there is an indication of some desire on the part of the government to seek support for that amendment and to seek the consent of the House for its inclusion at this time.
Is there any indication whether that consent is forthcoming?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier-and I am sure the other parties will speak for themselves-I think there will be unanimous consent to put this motion because of the importance of it to a particular group of workers in Canada.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there is one difficulty not alluded to and it may give us some concern. 1 am advised that there is a consent on the merits of the amendment but we have to be careful about the question of the royal recommendation. I am not privy to the problems of obtaining a royal recommendation but if one is required I think it should be obtained and that might give us some problems in terms of time.
[DOT] (U50)


Mr. Speaker:: There will be discussion on any of the other motions.


Mr. Goodale:: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the concern which the House leader of the Conservative party has just raised. If the House would proceed with the other amendments in Bill C-38 at this time, I would undertake to consult with him and

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
officials of the House to determine whether in fact a royal recommendation is required. We will do our level best-since there seems to be a disposition in the House to accept the amendment-to have the recommendation in the hands of hon. members as quickly as possible.


Mr. Speaker:: It is a rather severe procedural difficulty because in each case when we attempt to deal with these matters we are setting some precedents. Sometimes, even though there is a disposition in terms of the spirit and intent of the motion, 1 am sure there are some things the House can do by consent. However, I am concerned that we may be extending even that with respect to this measure and will find ourselves with a provision in an act to which it does not directly relate. In any case, I would like some time to reflect on the long range ramifications of attempting to deal with that situation which, in accordance with our precedents we cannot do procedurally. While we deal with other motions, there can be some consultation in that regard.


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear on this. I am not as up to date as the House leader of the Official Opposition regarding the necessity for a royal recommendation. Let me simply make this point to you with regard to the intent of the government concerning this bill. I draw your attention in particular to section 69(1) and (2) of the same bill amending the Fisheries Act. Section 69(1) reads:
The provisions of this act and the regulations that apply to any or all of Canadian fisheries waters, without anything in the context of such provisions indicating that they apply to any specified area of Canadian fisheries waters, shall, in relation to any fishing vessel on the High Seas,-
That is the way the Fisheries Act reads. The clause amending the Fisheries Act reads at this point:
... in relation to any fishing vessel or aircraft on or over the High Seas-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if the hon. member would clarify for me from what part of the bill he is reading.


Bill Rompkey: I am reading from section 69 of Bill C-38.


Mr. Speaker:: Bill C-38 only has 22 clauses.


Bill Rompkey: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I mean clause 19 on page 20.


Mr. Speaker:: Which seeks to amend section 69 of the Fisheries Act?


Bill Rompkey: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry if I confused you on that. The point is that the bill amended the act by adding the words "or aircraft" after "fishing vessels", and the words "or over" the high seas. It goes on to read:
... that is subject to the jurisdiction of Canada, or any act or thing done or omitted to be done on, from or by means of such fishing vessel-
And again the words "or aircraft" are added at this point. I continue reading:
... or aircraft, be deemed to extend and apply to the High Seas.
[Mr. Goodale.J
Subsection (2) reads:
The governor in council may make regulations respecting fisheries located in waters other than Canadian fisheries waters applicable to vessels or aircraft-
The point is that the insertion of the words "or aircraft" could only be with regard to the jurisdiction and administration of the seal fishery. It was the intention of the government to protect the seal fishery in order to better manage it and better protect sealers in the lawful course of their work. That was the reason that that particular wording was inserted. Therefore, the argument is that this motion is in order because it is in line with the intention of the government to give greater protection to sealers as indicated by the amendment of the section in the act in clause 19 of Bill C-38.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again the Chair will take into consideration the nature of the amendment and the statute to see whether or not something can be accomplished at this point by unanimous consent. I think all hon. members understand that obviously the intention of the amendment is praiseworthy. That is not the difficulty. However, what is being done here is an attempt to go beyond this amending statute to another statute that this bill does not seek to amend. I am not certain that that can be done even with the consent of the House, and 1 will need some time to consider it.
Motion No. 2 is in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Perhaps the House will move to consideration of that motion while we reflect on the other problems.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster) moved:: Motion No. 2.
That Bill C-38, An Act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 7 by adding immediately after line 22 at page 9 the following:
"(15) Where fish have accumulated deleterious substances to an extent that the health of the Canadian people is endangered, the Minister may prohibit fishing in those Canadian fisheries waters until a time when the level of deleterious substances has decreased and no longer constitutes a health hazard."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I take it that at this point in the proceedings it is appropriate that we deal with the substance of the motion. There is no procedural problem with it. In any event, it is appropriate that this morning's Montreal Gazette carries an interesting story on mercury poisoned fish, the headline of which reads: "273 Waterways have Mercury Poisoned Fish". The article reads:
At least 273 Canadian lakes and rivers contain mercury contaminated fish posing a health hazard if eaten, says a list compiled by the federal environment department and officially described as incomplete.
1 emphasize the fact that that list is incomplete. The article goes on to read:
The list shows that most of the affected lakes and streams-roughly 160-are in Ontario, Manitoba has 40, Saskatchewan and Quebec 22 each, the Northwest Territories 12, New Brunswick 6, Alberta 4, Nova Scotia 2, and British Columbia and Newfoundland 1 each.
The report names nine industries which are known to cause mercury pollution in 21 lakes or rivers.
June 28, 1977

Then the industries are named, such as Domtar Limited at Lebel-sur-Quevillon, about 50 miles north east of Val-d'Or, Aluminum Company of Canada Limited at Arvida, near Chicoutimi, and Strachem Limited, Beauharnois on Lake St. Louis. Of course, the most famous case of all is the Reed Paper pollution of the English-Wabigoon river system. I do not think there is a more important amendment that this House can deal with in terms of this bill and I do not think there is a more important matter to deal with than this question of the poisoning of native Canadians as the result of our rush to industrialize a part of Canada. We cannot have it both ways in this country. We who live in the south and who look to the modern industrial world to provide us with the comforts, cannot sit home quietly and have our comforts at the price of the death of the native people in this country, and that is the risk we have been running for a long time. The warnings have been there, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) and the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) have been dragged, kicking and screaming into this issue.
I will not neglect the province of Ontario. I think that province has much to account for in terms of its approach to the English-Wabigoon river system. This amendment would allow the minister to prohibit fishing in any waters until such time as the amount of deleterious substances decreases and no longer constitutes a health hazard. That would mean some disruption both for native people and for people who run tourist businesses along those streams, but surely we cannot continue to pay the price of poor health among native people just to keep a few small industries going. If we are interested in the health of fish, surely we should be interested in the health of humans, and this amendment gives us an ideal opportunity to move now.
Let us remember that the power which would be given to the minister would be a discretionary power. He may close those rivers. He would not have to, but at least we would not have the jurisdictional foul-up we now have in Ontario whereby the federal government says this matter is a provincial responsibility and the provincial government says it is partly its responsibility and partly that of the federal government and that the matter should be studied further. We have studied that system long enough, and we know that native people have mercury poisoning. We know also that on the Quebec side there are areas where there is serious mercury poisoning.
Lrom time to time it is argued that because of the division of fisheries jurisdiction the federal government cannot act. 1 do not think that argument will wash. The Native Indian Brotherhood presented a very articulate and well researched brief to the minister. In terms of the argument in favour of the minister's reserve jurisdiction and the whole question of being able to end fishing in streams until those streams are properly cleaned up and the health of Canadians is protected, I am very happy to endorse that brief. I do not know why this amendment was not adopted by the government when the bill was first drafted and why it was not adopted by the committee
Fisheries Act
because it would not allow the minister to exceed his jurisdiction. It is not a mandatory provision. It would allow the minister to use his jurisdiction, and where a dispute arises, as it has with regard to the English-Wabigoon matter, the minister could clearly move to end very dangerous situations.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Lisheries and the Environment (Mr. Lleming) indicated to the National Indian Brotherhood on Lebruary 1 that the government would not close the river system unilaterally. I am pleased to see the parliamentary secretary in the House today, and when he responds, as I am sure he would like to, I hope he will explain why he wrote that letter and why he rejected an amendment to the bill which would allow the minister to act unilaterally under the provisions of the bill. The government cannot have it both ways. It cannot write to the National Indian Brotherhood and say it does not have the power and then, when the brotherhood seeks to give the government that power in the form of an amendment, refuse to accept it. We are looking for a little bit of federal leadership. There must be co-operation, but the minister must clearly have reserve jurisdiction in terms of this mercury problem, which is a problem right across the country.
I have been dealing with the English-Wabigoon system because that is the system which has had the most attention here in Ontario, but there is a whole chain of poisoned rivers going from one end of Canada to the other. There is not much use in casting blame and saying that Reed Paper is the villain or that someone else is the villain. Yes, Reed Paper is the villain, but we have a very special responsibility to deal with the effects and the cause of that poisoning. Instead of keeping the price of paper low by poisoning Indians and by not putting in the kinds of devices that are needed to stop that poisoning, we in this House have a special moral responsibility to see that those streams are closed and that the natives of Canada are protected. I plead with the minister and his parliamentary secretary not to reject this amendment out of hand or on any partisan basis. Here is an opportunity to exercise leadership and not simply to say that Ontario does not really want to shut down the sport fishery and that if people eat a few of those polluted fish they will be all right. If the government says that, native people will quite rightly think that if the fish are all right for American tourists, they are all right for them. The problem continues to be compounded by a lack of leadership at the federal level.
I am not going to deal in detail with the jurisdictional argument which was presented to the minister by the National Indian Brotherhood. The position of the brotherhood is that the federal government has unilaterally abandoned jurisdiction as a result of some events which occurred a very long time ago. To me that seems to be quite a persuasive argument, and if we examine it from the point of view of the British North America Act, the jurisdiction is still clearly there. It is time the federal government stopped abandoning its powers and leaving them to the provinces. This is another opportunity for the federal government to assert itself in an area where we have not seen any federal leadership whatsoever. The federal

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
government should protect the health of the Canadian people, particularly that of native people, from the effects of mercury poisoning.
This bill is basically designed to improve our capacity to increase the spawn and the size of fish catches, but it also deals with the question of fish quality, and when it deals with that, it must also deal with the question of the health of those who consume that fish. It is directly related. This seems to me to be a golden opportunity for the minister to accept this well reasoned amendment and to place himself in a position in which he could shut down the English-Wabigoon system until the problem of mercury pollution has been solved.
This would be a great incentive to industry. As this bill proceeded through second reading stage and through committee stage the argument throughout was that the powers in the bill are great. We know they are, but we should not be unreasonable in exercising those powers. We need those powers to encourage industry to clean up its act. All we have to do is use the bill to give industry notice that we have the potential to require industry to discontinue or change some of its operations. We think that if the federal government has this kind of power, industry will voluntarily comply. Surely, the same argument holds true for the proposed amendment. It would give the minister the power to shut down certain streams, and this would give industry a tremendous incentive to make doubly sure that it does not continue contaminating the 273 waterways which the Department of the Environment has identified as being contaminated by mercury.
I am disappointed that we have spent so much time on this bill in terms of considering its commercial potential. That is necessary and useful, but we seem to have spent an inordinate amount of time on that and not dealt with the other side of the question, which is the question of the poisoning of people who consume poisoned fish. 1 shall say no more. I commend the amendment to the minister and am disappointed it has not found favour with more hon. members.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. 1 do not think any native people would say the intent of the hon. member's amendment is not good, but that is not the issue. The hon. member spoke of a certain historical abandonment of responsibility, and I suggest that he was not correct. 1 do not believe that giving provincial jurisdictions the right to enforce federal legislation, by agreement, is necessarily an abandonment of responsibility. Certainly, it is not an abandonment according to what 1 studied in law school.


Walter David Baker: It is co-operative federalism.


William Herbert Jarvis: I accuse the hon. member of no ulterior motives, but point out that the activities of the provincial Ontario NDP concerning the English-Wabigoon river system disturbs me deeply. I do not blame the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), but suggest that the leader of the Ontario NDP

was more concerned about inspecting refrigerators and being reported in the headlines than about anything else.
1 read carefully the brief of the National Indian Brotherhood and think, as does the hon. member for New Westminster, that it was well reasoned and well presented and undoubtedly led to this amendment being proposed. 1 discussed briefly with representatives of the Brotherhood the facts which prompted them to view the situation with respect to the river system with alarm, and I share their attitude. 1 commend the Brotherhood for preparing an excellent brief. On the other hand, I have great difficulty accepting at face value what the hon. member for New Westminster suggested. He suggests, after having assessed the history of the situation in the area, that the federal government should assume what he thinks is its constitutional responsibility under the British North America Act. 1 suggest that the progress we have made on environmental questions has not come about because one jurisdiction has taken away authority from another. We have made substantial progress by co-operating with our jurisdictions, provincial and municipal. I suggest that the federal government could have acted with respect to the English-Wabigoon river system by order in council, but chose not to do so for its own reasons, for which 1 might condemn it. 1 do not know.
Solicitors in the employ of the government of Ontario told me that, without question, the federal government had power to close the river completely to sports and commercial fishing, but chose not to do this because it thinks that regulations concerning the Fisheries Act can best be enforced in inland waters by provincial jurisdictions. I think I and the hon. member for New Westminster are debating this question today. The hon. member thinks the regulations could be better enforced at the federal level. 1 question that. I do not think big government getting bigger is necessarily better, particularly with respect to environmental matters. The ability of many provinces to enforce federal legislation concerning inland waters and fisheries will vary. The facilities and manpower for enforcing the regulations will vary as between provinces.
Something else troubles me about the amendment, and the hon. member did not address himself to the point. If the federal government chooses to take this action-and it would have power so to act even if the amendment were not passed- what consequences would flow from that action? Would the provincial government feel obliged, because of the action it took, to feed the native peoples who can no longer consume the fish from the river. If the federal government acted under this amendment, does the hon. member for New Westminster think no consequences would flow from that action? I suggest, seriously, that there may not be legal consequences, but there would certainly be strong moral consequences. If I cut off the food supply of certain native people in a certain geographic location, am I not morally obligated to provide them with a substitute food supply? Does the hon. member suggest the federal government should move into that area?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: They did.
June 28, 1977


William Herbert Jarvis: It has from time to time. Has the hon. member seriously considered the consequences of the federal government's closing, say, a waterway for commercial and sports fishing? What would be the position if the federal Department of Agriculture acted this way with respect to hoof and mouth disease in cattle? What would the consequences be? The point is important; unfortunately the hon. member did not consider it. If he suggests the federal government should assume responsibility in those cases, he and I part company. Obviously, the hon. member favours extending federal jurisdiction in matters affecting native peoples.
1 have some doubt about this motion, first, because the federal government already has the power to do what the amendment proposes; second, because 1 am concerned about the consequences of those actions I mentioned.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What about the consequences of inaction?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, since it is agreed that we should make progress with the bill, my reply to the points raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) will be brief. I believe the hon. member for New Westminster referred to a letter 1 had sent to someone. Actually, if memory serves me right, I believe he was referring to a response 1 gave in the House of Commons to a question.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: That is right.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: in my response I said the federal government would not move unilaterally and tried to make the point the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) made so well some minutes ago. I believe the federal government has power to act under the present legislation. Therefore the matter comes down to a ceding of administrative responsibility. Should we, at will, no matter how worthy the cause, enter a field of jurisdiction because of some alleged fear the province or other authority will not carry out its responsibility; and leave that field of jurisdiction when we think that authority is acting properly, particularly in environmental matters? The hon. member for New Westminster said several times the government cannot have it both ways. That is the precise difficulty. We cannot have it both ways in the administration of this act and in the proposing of legislation. On the other hand, in many cases there is a healthy federal-provincial relationship in which the provinces assume responsibility for administration of the act.
In this connection may I quote part of a letter written to Mr. Noel Starblanket, President of the National Indian Brotherhood in February, by the senior assistant deputy minister, fisheries and marine service of DFE-Department of Fisheries and the Environment. I begin at the second paragraph. The letter reads;
As you may be aware, responsibility for administration of the Fisheries Act has been delegated to the province of Ontario since 1898.
Fisheries Act
I believe that that is 1902.
While provincial regulations under the Act must be approved by the federal government, we have not had a direct involvement in the management of Ontario fisheries for over 75 years. Although the minister retains the legislative authority for regulating fisheries, it is his firm position that the delegation of authority to the province to administer the Fisheries Act must be respected. He has indicated that he does not intend to intervene in a matter which is clearly a provincial responsibility.
While the minister is not prepared to overrule any provincial decision regarding sport fishing on the English-Wabigoon, he does support the concept of a fishing ban in that waterway as a useful step to reduce the consumption of contaminated fish by native people. It is also his view that while enforcement of a ban would obviously require the active cooperation of provincial authorities, the opportunity should be provided for local residents to become directly involved in enforcement of the ban to maximize its effectiveness.
I point that out to try to state the particular position and also to argue that my minister has not been hesitant in making very clear his views as the federal Minister of Fisheries and the Environment on what should happen in that area. We have heard many arguments, particularly on occasion from members of the NDP, that we cannot continue to intrude on provincial responsibilities, that we must respect the practice that has been carried on for a number of years.
Clearly for 75 years we said we have the act, you will administer it and we have not intruded. On particular occasions where we believe the cause justifies it and we negate their judgment, surely there will be consequences. 1 think that is the point that the member for Perth-Wilmot was making, as well as consequences of compensation.
Much more important is the consequence of either giving people at a different level of government responsibility to carry on or not giving them the responsibility at all. I am sure the hon. member for New Westminster is not suggesting we should take back from Ontario the responsibility they have held for 75 years.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that by hearing the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) now, he will close the debate.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I wish to respond to two points in the debate. One is that if the federal government took action under this proposed amendment, consequences would flow. That is correct. In fact, there is ample precedent for that. Consequences have flowed from the English-Wabigoon case. In fact, it was not the province of Ontario but the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Allmand) who provided the freezers and the fish.


An hon. Member:: In Ontario.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In Ontario, too. I am not suggesting any one particular group did it. I do not think it is valid to argue that because consequences flow from these kinds of decisions that there is not the lateral responsibility that goes with that.
Of course, any government would take the consequences of shutting down a stream. If native people were not involved, I would say there is a federal responsibility to those people in

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
that area to receive alternate employment and alternate compensation as a result of the poisoning of the water. However, it does not seem to be a valid argument in terms of opposing this particular amendment.
The other question is the position of the New Democratic Party in Ontario. When 1 initiated this, 1 said I was not initiating it on a partisan basis. I did not want to compare the record of the federal government and the provincial government in this area and so on. However, since the hon. member wants to raise that question and insinuate that question into the debate, the record of the provincial Ontario government has been appalling with regard to the English-Wabigoon system. I am not using that as an argument particularly, but quite clearly they have made political decisions with regard to that area of the country which have damaged the health of native people, to their discredit.
The mere fact that administration of the Fisheries Act has been left to the provinces does not mean that for all time the federal government has abandoned its jurisdiction, its capacity to take over the clear question of whether a river should be open or closed. To continue to play this jurisdictional game between the provinces and the federal government means that in the meantime we are going to find Indians with mercury poisoning. Ordinary Canadians everywhere will have their health seriously affected while this silly constitutional debate continues.
The fact is the reserve jurisdiction is in the federal government. It is about time they took the leadership and had the guts to close down that river and put this amendment in the bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2 standing in the name of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: I will order that the division be deferred.
Earlier in the day I expressed some concern about the procedural regularity of motion No. I in the name of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Romp-key), seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). The motion seeks to attach itself to clause 3 of Bill C-38. Clause 3 of Bill C-38 reads as follows:
Section 12 of the said Act-
That being the Fisheries Act.
-is repealed and the following substituted therefor:

What follows is a new clause 12 which defines salmon and other prohibited species. The purpose of the amendment to which the House seeks to give its consent from a procedural point of view is to repeal Sections 10 to 12 of the said act and to substitute a new Section 10 and Section 11.
I was concerned upon reading the motions that even with unanimous consent the House not attempt to do so because 1 was fearful that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador went far beyond the provisions of this statute and into sections of the Fisheries Act not dealt with here. In fact, upon examination of the amendment, the statute and the Fisheries Act, I am indeed certain.
I was concerned that we ought not to do by unanimous consent that which was totally wrong from a substantive point of view. It seems to me that the House is perfectly able to give its consent to set aside its Standing Orders. It is perfectly able to give its unanimous consent to waive procedural requirements and precedents concerning notices and things of that sort. However, if we were to come to a point where we had an attempt to introduce an amendment which was totally contrary to the principle of a bill or totally beyond the scope of a bill, that is the time the Chair ought to intervene so that even upon unanimous consent we would not attempt to do things that were fundamentally wrong from both a procedural and substantive point of view.
However, in this particular instance there are certain conditions. First, Bill C-38 does in fact amend the Fisheries Act. That is its purpose. Second, it does set up machinery for the settling of disputes in several particular sections and imposes fines and penalties for difficulties about fisheries jurisdictions and things of that sort. Third, by examining sections 10 and 11 which it is proposed by this amendment to change, sections 10 and 11 already do in a substantial way what it is that this amendment attempts. The language in sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act is almost identical to the language that is being put forward in these amendments. Therefore, what is attempted here is a relatively minor change to those two sections in order to give effect to the inclusion of provision for jurisdiction by certain fisheries officers, and some other related aspects, and also to change in a minor way the definition of the seal fishery, which is already the subject of those sections.
It might, indeed, be argued that even in these circumstances, since Bill C-38 does not touch sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act this amendment is not in order. I would probably be persuaded on purely procedural grounds, since Bill C-38 does not propose to amend sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act it could probably not be moved at this time. But given the unanimous consent of the House, under all the circumstances I have outlined, we are not stretching things too far in attempting to accommodate hon. members.
There is another point I should bring to the attention of the House. First of all, section three of the bill does not deal with sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act. Further, the amendment which is put forward does not deal with the present
June 28, 1977

clause three of Bill C-38. It takes clause three of Bill C-38 and repeals it, and I think the intention probably was to add on these two paragraphs dealing with sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act. Instead of that, it is replacing the present clause three with the proposed amendments to sections 10 and 11 which means that clause three of Bill C-38 is lost. I am sure that was not the intention.
It seems to me all intentions would be more accurately served if the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), seconded by the hon. member for Humb-er-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) were to put forward what they now describe as a new clause three as a new subclause to the bill, which would become clause 3.1. Without touching the present clause three, it would deal directly with sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act just as described. This, because of its procedural irregularity, would be done by consent of the House. The procedural irregularity is still well within the principle of the bill, bearing in mind that it does amend the Fisheries Act, as is sought to be done here, and does set out to regulate several areas of fisheries dispute as is also sought to be done here. It seems to me that the procedural abberation is no greater than we have allowed many times in the past and therefore if it meets with the approval of the House perhaps the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador could seek the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion.


Bill Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could advise me whether it is necessary for me actually to introduce the clause as suggested or whether I am now at liberty to debate the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador seeks the consent of the House to introduce by way of a new clause to the bill a motion at the report stage which would propose the addition of a new clause 3.1 and which would read as follows:
3.1 Sections 10 to 12 of the Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
10.	No one shall with boat or vessel or in any other way during the time of fishing for seals knowingly or wilfully disturb, impede or interfere with any seal fishery or prevent or impede the shoals of seals from coming into such fishery or kwowingly or wilfully frighten such shoals.
11.	Disputes between occupiers of seal fisheries concerning limits and the method of fishing or setting nets shall be decided summarily by any fishery officer or justice of the peace, by whom arbitrators may be appointed to assess damages and any damages so assessed or arising out of a repetition or continuance of the difficulty ordered to be remedied may be levied under the warrant of any justice of the peace.
The seconder is the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall).
Does the House give unanimous consent to the introduction of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is therefore deemed to have been introduced.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Fisheries Act


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: On a brief point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the hon. member addresses the House on this motion, would he explain the reason for using the words "shoals of seals" rather than "herds of seals"? It is my understanding as a lifelong Lunenburger that when you went sealing you looked for herds of seals. I have never heard the expression "shoals of seals", in my life and 1 wish the hon. member would explain the terminology.


Mr. Speaker:: Even to my unpracticed ear the expression sounds strange. Nevertheless, it is the language already used in sections 10 and 11 of the Fisheries Act.


Ralph Goodale: What about "flocks of seals"?


Bill Rompkey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure I can give a satisfactory explanation of the term. I can only say that the terminology used in the amendment goes back to a previous day. Like the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) I am used to the term "herds of seals". However, "shoals" is the word which was used back in the dim pages of history and the people who drew up the act decided they would use this terminology. Perhaps the hon. member and I can discuss the point with the fisheries experts later on.
I want to make a few brief remarks on this important motion. There are two things we have to do on behalf of the sealing industry and on behalf of the sealers. One is legal and the other is political. I am using "political" in the broad sense of the word. What we are doing today is, I think, entirely legal, entirely in order. It is certainly not proper for anybody to go into the woods and interfere with a logger in the course of his work. Nobody is allowed to go down into a mine and interfere with a miner in the course of his work; nobody can go on the water and interfere with a fisherman, take up his nets, damage his boats. Yet last year on the ice floes off St. Anthony we saw people locking themselves to chains, stopping ships, taking clubs out of the hands of sealers and throwing pelts into the water. In other words, they were doing away with the means by which these people make their livelihood. After all, these sealers are engaged in an entirely legitimate pursuit, as are loggers, fishermen and, for that matter, office workers.
It is not our intention to keep away from the seal hunt those who go there for a legitimate reason. We do not want to keep away the press, for example. The press has gone to the seal hunt for the last several years and I think those reporters who are conscientious and reputable have given honest accounts and related the facts. Indeed, I think that from the small "p" political point of view the tables are turning on the side of the fishermen. This is due to the work of those responsible journalists who have written their stories and related the facts as they saw them. We do not want to keep such journalists away from the hunt. Nor do we want to keep away those who are engaged in research or even those who simply wish to go there as spectators to see what goes on.
In the past, however, people have gone there with the avowed intention of disrupting the sealers in the course of their

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
work. 1 think that is wrong and that it should be stopped. It does not happen anywhere else in Canada; it is not done to any other workers in Canada and we are determined that it shall not be done to the sealers. Last year, the fisheries officers had no authority to stop that sort of thing. They were on the high seas and had no authority to do what they thought they should be doing. They were practically impotent to do what needed to be done. This act, in another section, gives fisheries officers the authority of peace officers and will enable them to enforce this amendment.
From the political point of view, the other thing we have to do, after we pass this amendment and put it into law thus tightening the law on behalf of sealers, is to do a job in Canada by telling the story of the seal fishery as it should be told in order to set the record straight. The people of Canada have been subjected to a lot of inaccurate information. As an example, the method of killing seals has been described by many as inhumane. We have on the record now a number of reputable humane societies in this country which say that the method of seal killing is as humane as possible and is more humane than the methods used in many abattoirs in Canada. It is more humane than the methods used in other areas of work whereby living creatures are killed. There is a balance of nature to protect and preserve. We, as human beings, are going to continue to eat, and continue to use that which is put on this earth for our use. In terms of the humanity of the kill, it has been shown that it is as humane as most and more humane than some. The government of Canada took exception to steps in the direction of inhumane killing. I remember when the previous minister of fisheries outlawed the gaff and introduced the club. There is enough information on the record to indicate that the method of killing is humane.
I hope the seal industry in Newfoundland can be developed because it is an important source of income for Newfoundland fishermen. In years past they have made $1,000 a year from the fishery. This year, which was a particularly good year, inshore fishermen made an average of between $4,000 and $5,000 from the seal fishery alone. When you consider half of the fishermen in the Atlantic provinces live below what would normally be described as the poverty line in this country, then we can justify that seal fishery.
We had to change the law and we also have to change the hearts and minds of Canadians. We have wolves in sheep's clothing and false prophets who have been preying on the emotions of people who are looking for a cause and have nothing to get involved in at the moment. It is unfortunate that a former reputable organization such as Greenpeace should get involved in a situation which is not in keeping with their past record. When they protested against the testing of nuclear devices, a lot of people in this country were with them. Now that they are trying to protect the whales, a lot of people in this country will be with them. When they attempted to protect seals, they did not know what they were getting into and were out in left field. I hope we have been able to turn the tables. I hope we will be able to tell the people of Canada in

the future exactly how important this industry is to the Atlantic provinces and exactly what protections we should build in and are building into the Fisheries Act in order to protect people in the course of doing their jobs.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). I commend him for the work he has done, and I also commend the government for giving us this means to protect what has been the heritage of many hundreds of Newfoundlanders for many hundreds of years. I am very pleased, and I am sure the people of the Atlantic region are pleased as well, with the fact that this is a humane hunt. As the hon. member indicated, it has been proven time and time again that people for some reason or other are trying to destroy the minds of other people for their own gains.
1 have no hesitation in naming the people to whom I am referring. As is indicated in the article contained in the Toronto Sun, the people who wanted to ban sealing were: Brian Davies from Vancouver; Franz Weber from Switzerland; Michael Moynihan from New York, who is Senator Daniel P. Moynihan's brother; and some fellow from Boulder, Colorado who accompanied Brian Davies of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, Greenpeace. The article continues as follows:
These types are the reason why, every springtime, when the harp seals begin to whelp on the front of ice moving down from the Arctic, St. Anthony turns into a scene that, if Paddy Chayefsky had known about it, he would have worked into Network.
These are people who are doing damage to Newfoundland Canadians, and they are allowed to get away with it. They went deliberately to the seal hunt last year against orders and provoked fishery officials and sealers just to get particular attention. They pretended they were drowning and pretended they were hit by fishery officers, just to get the attention of the press and to give the wrong impression to the people of Canada and the people of the world. They wanted to give the impression that Newfoundlanders were barbarians and that the seal hunt should not continue.
As my hon. colleague has said, the table has turned, and it turned as late as May 30, 1977 when the Ontario Humane Society indicated in a very good article that they were convinced the seal hunt was humane and supported it wholeheartedly. An article in the St. John's Evening Telegram of May 30, 1977 reads as follows:
Canada's largest humane society has endorsed a report of a government committee on sealing which maintains Newfoundland's annual seal hunt is the most carefully regulated and controlled of outside slaughter operations.
The 20,000-member Ontario Humane Society Friday unanimously passed a resolution supporting the report of the committee on seals and sealing at its annual general meeting held in Honey Harbour, Ontario.
The COSS was appointed by the federal government in 1971 and is composed of scientists, veterinarians, and members of Canadian and international humane societies.
Perhaps much more will be said about this after today, but I should recommend to everybody in the House, if they have not seen it, the pamphlet put out by the Minister of Fisheries and
June 28, 1977

the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and entitled; "The Seal Hunt". Every member should send out copies of it to their constituents, so that the people of Canada are made aware that this is a humane hunt and can continue without the destruction of society and only to the destruction of false words, wrong impressions and false provocations by Canadians who should not be classed as Canadians.
A perfect example to cite is that of the petition which was sent out by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and myself. In my district there are 25,000 householders, and there is only one small corner of my constituency which is called Plum Point from which landsmen fish. At the time we presented this petition in the House of Commons, it contained 15,536 signatures, and they are still coming in. The figure is now over 16,000. It indicates how 16,000 people in one part of Newfoundland, which is a fair proportion of the total population of approximately half a million, feel about outsiders coming in and destroying what is theirs through heritage. There are also the signatures which were collected by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and other colleagues which total over 40,000.
I hope the amendments will give power so that we will not have the embarrassing situations which occurred in past years, particularly last year. To refer once again to Brian Davies, in 1975 he went to court and his case was deemed as being outside provincial jurisdiction. The case was postponed, and it has been appealed now by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford). In 1976, while his case is being appealed, the same man went out and committed the same crime, deliberately contravening the Seals Act. He is laughing at Canadian law-makers, at parliament. He should not be allowed to get away with this. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent people from interfering with this seal hunt. 1 have no hesitation in commending the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) for bringing the motion forward and I am pleased that he asked me to second it. Passage by this House will allow us to accomplish something for Canadian society and Canadian fishermen.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I seek some clarification on the purpose of the amendment. I have great respect for the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) because 1 know the amount of study he and other members have done on the subject. I am reluctant to get into a debate on a motion which concerns a fishery so far from my own constituency and about which the members supporting the amendment are so knowledgeable.
The amendment reads in part:
10. No one shall with boat or vessel or in any other way during the time of fishing for seals knowingly or wilfully disturb ...
The words "in any other way" bother me. During the course of debate it has been indicated that there is no desire to keep responsible journalists away from reporting on the hunt but how do we define who is responsible and who is not in these circumstances? 1 agree completely with the comments of the
Fisheries Act
Ontario Humane Society which were read into the record. I was one who refused unanimous consent several years ago to a motion condemning the activities of the Greenpeace in regard to the seal hunt and 1 think they were misguided in their activities last year. I am satisfied now that the evidence of our biologists is sound in the two areas in question, the humane conduct of the hunt and the biological capacity of this species to recover. I agree with those who claim the hunt is proper.
My concern with the amendment is that it would appear to be a move to "censor" the seal hunt rather than "censure" it. That may be a dangerous area. If we say that only certain journalists may observe the hunt we will be criticized very severely at home and abroad for apparently seeking to hide an activity that we do not need to hide. The whole world has looked at our seal hunt. I know that school children have been circulated in the United States and there has been talk of the "horrible hunt". I am not worried about the media; I am convinced that Canada won the argument last year on the facts. However, I am nervous about an amendment that says that any disruption in any way would be penalized.
That would leave a tremendous amount of discretion to be used about who we keep off the ice to report on the seal hunt. It seems to me to say we will let the good journalists on the ice and keep off the bad journalists. That is a dangerous position to take and I do not think we have anything to hide with regard to the seal hunt-there are some other areas where we may have things to hide but from the body of evidence 1 have seen, 1 am satisfied that the seal hunt is conducted properly.
Do we need legislation aimed at a particular group or particular journalists to prevent them from seeing what goes on? I think it would increase the problem rather than reduce it. Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the amendment, not because I am opposed to the seal hunt but because we have nothing to hide and it seems to me the amendment is designed to prevent complete media coverage of the hunt. As long as people do not interfere with the hunt-by that I mean picketing or interfering with the sealers-or have an effect on the species by reducing the number of seals that may be in the area-I have to oppose the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I would think the hon. member would have an opportunity to wind up debate on his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The precedent is of rather recent memory but is not of a very high quality. Due to the circumstances under which we are operating, the House will realize that earlier this morning I returned to the Chair and, while attempting to sort out one of the procedural problems we were discussing under these rather extraordinary circum-

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
stances, I gave the floor to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who had already spoken on his motion. At this stage however, there is simply no procedure whereby a member can speak more than once, even if he wishes to close the debate. That has to be taken as a rather extraordinary occurrence.
For the benefit of the House 1 should like to settle a procedural question on motion No. 3. I was endeavouring to do so before one o'clock in order to assist hon. members in planning their schedule of work for this evening. Motion No. 3 is an amendment of the minister and proposes to add conditions to the power of the minister to prescribe an order in clause 8. The condition that is sought to be added is an offer of consultation with the provinces before that takes place. In committee, I am aware that the chairman ruled that amendment out of order on the basis of a precedent I had set in relation to the immigration bill only a few days previously. In reading the two clauses it is not difficult to understand why the committee chairman would make that ruling. The language of the two clauses is similar and it seems to me it would be difficult for the committee chairman to resist a comparison between them and therefore to follow the precedent set in the immigration bill and rule this amendment out of order.
Upon reflection, however, it seems to me that the conditions are somewhat different. In the immigration precedent the statute had put forward by way of a general authority clause all of the authorities the minister required in order to behave as the minister responsible for that particular statute. It was a general authority clause which every statute of that sort must have in order to see to it that the minister is clothed with the appropriate authority to operate all the programs contained in the statute.
To that clause of general authority for the minister, it was sought to add that the minister was required to consult with the provinces before the implementation of some of the programs. In that circumstance it seemed to ms it added an entirely new concept of the statute. In this situation, however, the conditions are somewhat different for indeed what is prescribed here is not the general authority section of the minister but rather a specific power of the minister to prescribe an order under certain circumstances and in certain conditions. The amendment therefore seeks to add another condition. Therefore, it is quite different from the precedent that was taken from the immigration bill.
In any case we are again faced with the desire already expressed by the House-for indeed there has been a desire expressed by the opposition-that there be greater consultation with the provinces, and in these circumstances the minister is attempting to give some credence to that expression of goodwill by enshrining it in statutory language. In the circumstances there seems to be an intent of the House that the matter be debated. Even if I were to be left in some doubt on the matter as to its procedural regularity-and in fact I am

not-it is always incumbent on the Chair to attempt to resolve the doubt in favour of the matter being discussed in the House.
Because I think the conditions are different and the precedent does not apply as exactly as it first appeared, although I understand perfectly the reasoning of the committee chairman in following the precedent, and secondly because if I were left in any doubt I would resolve it in favour of discussion, and finally, because there has already been an indication that if there were a procedural irregularity, which I do not find, the House would want to discuss this motion in any case, I think it appropriate that the motion be put before the House for discussion and that it be found to be appropriate on procedural grounds.
Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 1 ?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: Those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
I declare motion No. 1 carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I raise a matter that has been discussed with the other parties having to do with an amendment to the standing orders, but not one that causes problems in principle. It reads:
That Standing Order 65(1 )(q) be amended by deleting the semi-colon at the end and adding the following: "to which the Public Accounts and all reports of the Auditor General shall be deemed to have been referred, immediately the said documents are tabled;"
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the public accounts and reports of the Auditor General are automatically referred. 1 would like to move that motion and have it adopted.
I have another point of order which may commend itself to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the
June 28, 1977

Fisheries Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
pleasure of the House that the President of the Privy Council shall have leave to introduce the amendment?
["Order, please. It being 10.30 o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until Wednesday, June 29, 1977, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 10.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.", 'Wednesday, June 29, 1977']
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Allan Joseph MacEachen: As hon. members are aware, the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has been considering the question of farm broadcasting. Their term of reference has expired so that they have not been able to make a report. In response to a number of requests from members of the committee I should like to move:
That the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be authorized to consider the subject matter of farm broadcasting and that the evidence adduced thereon in December 1976 be referred to the said committee.
The hope is that once the committee has received this reference it will produce a report in the remaining days of the session.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) seeks the consent of the House to introduce this motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being no further business, 1 do now leave the chair pursuant to an order made Monday, June 27, until eight o'clock this evening.
At 1.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-38, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 8 by adding immediately after line 11 at page 11 the following:
"(4) Where the minister or a person designated by the Minister proposes to
make an order pursuant to subsection (2), he shall after to consult with
(a)	the governments of any provinces that he considers to be interested in any such proposed order, and
(b)	any departments or agencies of the government of Canada that he considers appropriate,
but nothing in this subsection prevents the minister or a person designated by
the minister from making an interim order pursuant to subsection (2) without
such consultation where he considers that immediate action is necessary."


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on motion No. 3, which is before the House. I feel it is only proper that I put on record some of the concerns expressed by the provinces as well as those expressed by industry when this measure was before the committee for detailed study.
The motion moved for the minister is identical to one which was rejected by the chairman of the committee, but 1 am pleased to see that it has been introduced to the House once again. When we examined the original amendment in the committee, the concerns of a number of provinces were registered. It is not my intention to burden the record tonight with all of the objections, but I think some of them should be recorded in Hansard so that the positions of the provinces will be there for everyone reading Hansard to see. Starting on the Pacific coast, the brief submitted to the committee by the government of British Columbia reads in part as follows:
The proposed amendments to the Fisheries Act (Bill C-38) have been brought to my attention by a number of ministries within the British Columbia government, as well as representatives from major industries in the province. All are concerned with the effect the proposed legislative changes will have on existing co-operative arrangements between agencies of our two governments dealing with environmental protection and pollution control. They are also apprehensive about the potential effect of these proposals on resource and economic development.
The mutual objective of avoiding duplication of government regulations, particularly in relation to resource-based industries, will not be furthered by the proposed legislation. The close co-operation we have enjoyed in the environmental field may be jeopardized. The proposed legislation is oriented to a single resource-albeit of considerable importance to this province-but is out of step with the multiple resource use essential to the development of a healthy economy in British Columbia.

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
That is the prelude to their brief, which indicates some of the concerns of those who reside in British Columbia. I will not deal with all the briefs. 1 am picking them at random. The government of Alberta submitted one, which says in part:
The rights of provinces to maintain those areas of jurisdiction allotted them by the British North America Act is a fundamental principle of the Canadian constitution. Alberta strongly reaffirms this principle and maintains that the provinces have the right to receive adequate consideration by the federal government where proposed legislation may create encroachment upon provincial fields of legislation. Alberta feels that the proposed Bill C-38 clearly impinges on provincial rights ...
An example of such a mechanism is a recent agreement signed in 1975 between Canada and Alberta in which they entered into an accord for the protection and enhancement of environmental quality. Both Canada and Alberta have jurisdictional responsibility in the field of environmental quality including pollution prevention, control and abatement. The accord was a recognition of this joint responsibility. It stated that both parties would co-operate to make certain that environmental programs were planned in such a way as to ensure comprehensiveness and eliminate duplication. It was also agreed that both Canada and Alberta would adhere to certain principles and practices relating to the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, in the development and maintenance of complementary programs with each government acting within its constitutional jurisdiction. The objectives of the accord were to provide a more effective solution to pollution problems through better co-ordination of federal-provincial activities.
Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the accord are quoted in the brief, as follows:
Section 7. Canada, after consultation with the province and all other provinces, agrees to establish broad national ambient quality objectives for air and water based upon nationally agreed scientific criteria.
Section 9. Canada, after consultation with the province and all other provinces, agrees to develop national baseline effluent and emission requirements and guidelines for specific industrial groups and specific pollutants. Specific groups or classifications of industries will be agreed upon from time to time for the purpose of establishing priorities.
Section 10. Canada and the province agree to have adequate discussions on possible environmental effects of proposed major developments or redevelopment projects. Canada and the province undertake to provide each other with data and other general information as they may mutually agree to be necessary.
There is much more in the brief. On page 3 the following is found:
The proposed legislation in its present form contravenes the spirit of the accord as some of the amendments represent an intrusion into provincial jurisdiction over water resource management, natural resource development, industrial development, and local works and undertakings ...
The Honourable Romeo LeBlanc, Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, in his address to the House of Commons during the second reading of Bill C-38, indicated concern for the protection of fish and water quality. While the federal government's concern is laudable Alberta questions the right of the government of Canada to usurp provincial powers to achieve these ends.
Although that brief contains much more, 1 wanted to put the particular passages 1 quoted on record so that hon. members might consider them in committee, 1 am holding in my hand another brief presented by Dr. Henry Landis, Q.C., general counsel for the Ontario ministry of the environment. This was an excellent brief presented to the committee and some of the points he made are well worth repeating. He said:
The amendments should be evaluated not by how they may be administered but rather by what they authorize. If this standard is applied, they authorize environmental control which, in significant respects, goes beyond anything contained in Ontario's legislation, duplicates important parts of it, authorizes actions which could have adverse effects on the economy of Ontario and imposes

on industries and municipalities duties and liabilities with respect to reporting and cleanup which are unreasonable . ..
The amendments may well affect the legal validity of Ontario's legislation dealing with water pollution and water quality. Because of the greatly increased scope of the amendments and the similarity between the provisions dealing with cleanup and the proposed amendments to the Environmental Protection Act for the same purpose, there is now a greater likelihood of a court coming to the conclusion that the field of water pollution and water quality has been occupied by federal legislation and as a result deciding that provincial environmental legislation such as the Ontario Water Resources Act and provisions of the Environmental Protection Act dealing with this field, is inoperative. The amendments add urgency to this recommendation.
He goes on to list a number of other objections to the proposed amendments.
Finally, I come to the brief presented by my native province, Nova Scotia, with respect to this bill and, again, 1 will only read into the record the pertinent parts dealing with objections to some of the proposed amendments. They say on page 1:
-some of the proposed amendments are foreign to the terms of Confederation, incompatible with fundamental tenets of natural resource management, and contradict the federal government's own policies and legislation respecting the "conservation, development and utilization'', of water resources 'to ensure their optimum use for the benefit of all Canadians'.
They say, on page 2:
It is essential from our point of view that individuals, industry and municipalities be confronted with only one set of requirements, and requirements that provide for economic development consistent with a high level of environmental quality. We see no need to confuse and confound the public further by initiating a duplicating approval process with all the bureaucratic rivalry, confusion and delays that such duplication would entail.
These are matters requiring urgent consultation, since the province has found-
This is important. I continue:
-through experience, that the staff of the environmental protection service of the federal government often does not take account of the economic realities of a particular industry, or of the over-all interests of the community it supports, or the province, in its decision-making respecting pollution control.
They continue to say:
Co-operation between our two departments of the environment is imperative. It is essential that the federal agency recognize the primary role of the province and work through the province to obtain the information they require. For its part, the province is already co-operating in this regard.
In summary, the province of Nova Scotia does not believe that the Fathers of Confederation intended that the fishery power extended to the federal government should be the supreme power with respect to water resources management or to local works and undertakings. In particular, we do not believe that such pre-eminence to fisheries matters should pertain to waters internal to the province.
We believe that the needs of the people for high quality potable water, for industrial and agricultural water for water based recreation, should receive priority at least equal to that given to fisheries management by the federal government. We do not believe that the rights and needs of the people of our province for development and economic growth would be well served if made subservient to the needs of fish as determined, without consultation, by bureaucrats of the federal government.
My province entered into an accord in 1975, for the protection and enhancement of environmental quality. It was entered into on behalf of the government of Canada by the present Minister of Communications (Mrs. Sauve) who was then minister of the environment, and on behalf of the government of Nova Scotia by Hon. Glen M. Bagnell, minister of the
June 28, 1977

environment of the province. I shall not read all of the accord. Part of it states:
-the governments of Canada and Nova Scotia, recognizing that programs aimed at achieving environmental objectives should be planned and undertaken to ensure comprehensiveness and eliminate duplication, agree to adhere to the principles and practices stated below in the development and maintenance of complementary programs with each government acting within its jurisdiction; agree to develop new co-ordinating mechanisms and new complementary programs so that they are in harmony with existing co-operative or complementary arrangements in related fields flowing either from legislation or administrative practice; and agree to the following principles and practices relating to the protection and enhancement of environmental quality;
On page 3 they list the items to which they take exception. They concern the ambient environmental quality criteria and objectives. I shall read the points listed:
6.	Canada agrees, after consultation with the province and all other provinces, to determine and promulgate scientific criteria for air and water quality based upon the best available scientific information.
7.	Canada agrees, after consultation with the province and all other provinces, to establish broad national ambient quality objectives for air and water based upon nationally agreed scientific criteria.
8.	Canada and the province agree to identify specific geographic areas of joint interest and to establish specific ambient quality objectives or requirements for such areas based upon agreed scientific criteria. Existing agreements would not be affected by such undertakings.
9.	Canada, after consultation with the province and all other provinces, agrees to develop national baseline effluent and emission requirements and guidelines for specific industrial groups and specific pollutants. Specific groups or classifications of industries will be agreed upon from time to time for the purpose of establishing priorities.
10.	Canada and the province agree to consult freely on possible environmental effects of proposed major developments or redevelopment projects. Canada and the province undertake to provide each other with data and other general information necessary for an environmental assessment and review.
It is obvious from reading some of the briefs and the tenure of the briefs presented to the committee, whether the information came from Newfoundland or carried through all of the provinces, right through to British Columbia, that the thread was identical, namely, that consultation must take place between the federal government and the provinces. It was not only with the provinces that we noted it: it was equally true of all the briefs presented by the various companies as their witnesses appeared before the committee. One brief in particular, presented by the Mining Association of Canada, was very critical of the present government and the manner in which this bill was organized. They state in their brief:
Nevertheless, we feel that the members of the committee should be made aware of our serious concern at the lack of prior consultation which marked the conceptual stage of this particular bill . . .
Yet it would appear that little effort was made by Environment Canada to consult at the time with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources whose professionals in the many disciplines associated with mining could have been of considerable assistance.
Neither was any effort made by Environment Canada to consult on aspects of the bill with responsible experts in the mining industry through the medium of the Mining Association of Canada.
These are just some examples, Mr. Speaker. They indicate the concern of citizens right across the country. Therefore, we in the official opposition were concerned when the chairman of the committee indicated that the original motion as presented
Fisheries Act
was unacceptable. It was our intention to move a similar motion to that which is on the order paper now, in the event that it had not been moved by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc). However, this motion to which I address myself this evening states very clearly that the minister shall offer to consult with the governments of the provinces. I hope that wording will allay the fears of the provinces and their representatives who came before the committee. I am really surprised that this motion was not in the original bill.
Obviously, lack of consultation is of prime concern to Canadians. After all, if we are to have unity within the country when legislation is enacted at the federal level, consideration must be given to those who are affected thoughout the provinces. In the final analysis, it is only by consultation and agreement with them that we can make our laws effective. For all these reasons, we on this side are pleased to support this amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. LeBlanc) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: By unanimous consent, Mrs. Campagnolo, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moves:
That Bill C-38, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 5 by striking out line 12 on page 3 thereof and substituting therefor the following:
"equilibre d'une maniere prejudiciable"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, 1 will make a very short intervention, if I may. 1 had hoped that before dealing with this motion, for which I see no immediate reason for opposing, there might have been some explanation for the reasoning. This was never brought before the committee during the committee hearings, that I recall. 1 think 1 was there for all of them except maybe one. There may be some problems between the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I do not say disagreement, but some problems because of the implications of the Canada Shipping Act. Therefore, 1 hope the parliamentary secretary, or someone on the government side, will take the opportunity at this point to indicate to the House what

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
brought, on at this late date this particular government motion to amend at this stage.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, if I might, I will be very frank. I read an explanation into the record this afternoon. That explanation which I read into the record has since been sent off to Hansard. 1 will do my best in the absence of that piece of paper. Shortly before this bill came before the committee, at the request of my minister I approached the fisheries and environment critics of the official opposition, as well as the critic of the NDP, with regard to the possibility of bringing forward a further amendment to this act in committee which would in fact allow for civil liability in the case of fishermen who suffered loss of income as a result of pollution. They considered it, and were agreeable. After that point in time it was tabled and accepted in committee. I am trying to explain why it was so late in the day when that particular amendment came forward.
I sought that understanding from the opposition parties, because it was felt it would probably be some time before the Fisheries Act was again amended, and it was an important clause to have included although it developed late in the day. As a result of that, officials of the Department of Transport had some concern that this new clause as it reads would have an effect, or would at least confuse, already existing powers for liability that fishermen could claim in so far as the Canada Shipping Act is concerned.
The Department of the Environment and my minister did not feel that was a problem, because there is an existing fund of many millions of dollars for claims by fishermen against pollution caused by ships within the conditions of the Canada Shipping Act. In fact, to date there have been only two claims against that fund, for a total of about $635. We felt that was proof enough that there was no concern necessary on the part of the Department of Transport.
They believe that despite that argument, the shipping companies might face seriously increased insurance costs as a result of the Fisheries Act taking up this civil liability responsibility as well as the Canada Shipping Act. For that reason unanimous consent was sought to table the amendment today in order to accommodate them, since the essence of the clause is to redress in some measure fishermen for loss of income attributable to land-based pollution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Iona Campagnolo: That Bill C-38 be amended in subclause 7(3) thereof by adding thereto, immediately following line 16 on page 7, the following subsection:
"(10.5) Notwithstanding anything in this section, subsections (10) and (10.1) do not apply in respect of any deposit of a deleterious substance that, within the meaning of part XX of the Canada Shipping Act, constitutes a discharge of a pollutant caused by or otherwise attributable to a ship."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on motion No. 2.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare motion No. 2 lost.


Hon. Barney Danson (for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment) moved: that Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave now?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. There has been consultation with the opposition parties and the independent member, and I believe there is agreement to proceeding to third reading now.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it, by leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Barnett Jerome Danson: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, when this bill was brought forward for second reading on May 16, 1977, I indicated that our party would support the over-all intent of the bill. Nevertheless, I stated that we were concerned with particular aspects of it. We supported the bill because the present Fisheries Act needs immediate revision, especially in the areas of providing more realistic penalties for those contravening the act, of providing a ticketing system for minor infractions so that fisheries officers no longer will be tied up for ages in court proceedings, and of extending anti-pollution standards and controls to existing industries and other possible pollutants of fishery waters. However, we were concerned about the extensive search and seizure powers of the fisheries officers; the extensive search powers of the federal pollution inspectors; the possible federal-provincial constitutional clash over anti-pollution jurisdiction; the small number of fisheries officers and inspectors with whom the department expects to do the job; and the content of the regulations which the governor in council may prescribe in the future.
Due to the prodding of my fellow Progressive Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, as well as other members of the standing committee, most of our concerns have been satisfied. I introduced three amendments directed toward limiting the extensive search and seizure powers of the fishery and pollution control officers, and
Fisheries Act
all three were accepted. These amendments will ensure that any future changes in the powers of fisheries officers will have to be approved by parliament, not by the arbitrary whim of the minister and his bureaucrats. They will ensure, also, that a pollution control inspector has to have just cause in making any inspections without a warrant.
Finally, they ensure that a fishery officer has to have a warrant before he can search a private home. Presently, a fishery officer can search any place without a warrant, although a ministerial directive was issued which restricted some searches. We on this side did not feel that a ministerial directive was sufficient. We felt that these restrictions had to be placed within the statute.
We were pleased that the minister was kind enough to table the regulations of Bill C-38 in the standing committee. Quite frankly, I wish more ministers would be so co-operative. We were not pleased, however, to find that the Department of Fisheries does not intend to hire extra fisheries officers. Our fisheries officers are already overworked and are spread too thin in many areas of maritime Canada. With the added duties being given to them under Bill C-38, we expected some indication that more would be hired. If 1 may make a suggestion, perhaps the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) should redefine his priorities. In our opinion, we need more men in the field, not more men in bureaucratic Ottawa.
One of our chief concerns has been the possible constitutional problem over pollution and pollution control. Unfortunately, this problem has not been resolved. Man has set foot on the moon, and he has sent scientific probes to Venus, Mars and Jupiter. All proved that there is only one planet in this solar system which is ideal for man, and that is the planet earth. We are stuck with this planet and we are responsible for the conditions existing on it. There is simply no other place, according to all the scientific data we have at the present time, for us to go. Consequently, I am appalled when I look around and see the impact we and past generations have had on the earth's environment.
Frankly, it is not only our transport system that is in a mess, as was stated by the previous minister of transport. Our environment is in a mess as well. Each day more beaches are declared unsafe for swimming. Each day more lakes and rivers are declared too hazardous for fishing. Even in the oceans such fish as swordfish are declared too contaminated to be eaten. That is a burden the fishermen of Nova Scotia have carried. In 1972 they were actually ordered out of the fishing industry in so far as it applied to swordfish fishing. We lost something like a $5 million industry for the fishermen alone as a result of mercury contamination. We must do better. We must start to clean up the mess.
1 looked upon Bill C-38 as being an instrument which would aid in clean-up. With full federal-provincial co-operation, 1 was certain that Bill C-38 would be an effective anti-pollution instrument. Unfortunately, because of this Liberal govern-
7164

can only express the hope that the government will realize the valid concerns of the provincial administrations affected by this legislation and will take every opportunity to consult the provincial environment ministers before taking any action that impinges on provincial jurisdiction or authority.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, although I looked forward anxiously to the introduction of this bill, I do not criticize the government for the long time it spent considering it after first reading. I say this because I think all hon. members want us to pass a strong, viable, flexible and effective fisheries act. I suggest that for the co-operation extended it, even to the point of courtesy, the government should be truly thankful.
The second reading debate took one day. The committee heard five or six witnesses per scheduled session, and the sessions extended well beyond the scheduled time. That committee discussed, approved and rejected certain amendments. I suggest that the department has reason to expect we shall finish debating the bill this evening, which is more than the government deserves-and 1 take no pride in saying that. Certain groups in Canada need our help, and although we may be disappointed at the government's presenting us with the present version of this fisheries legislation, we must put our disappointment aside in the interest of serving the many Canadians affected.
1 shall talk under three headings. I shall discuss the process of consultation, the process of interpretation, and the process of implementation related to Bill C-38. 1 support what my colleague from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) said about consultation. I sympathize with the department which faced certain difficulties when consulting with industry; but the department should have known, when seeking to strengthen our fisheries legislation, that it would run into opposition from various segments of our industrial community. Naturally, it would seek to avoid such opposition if possible. Although I sympathize with it, 1 do not necessarily agree with what it did, since I do not think the avoidance of opposition necessarily serves the industry or the government.
Too often in the past we have circumvented the consultative process. However, 1 must be fair. I point out that after the bill was given second reading on February 21, I believe, the various associations involved with the industry showed almost no interest in the bill for up to three months and more. That disturbs me, since the headquarters of many of the associations dealing with fisheries questions are based in Ottawa. They could have monitored the legislation, and their failure in this regard disappoints me and no doubt disappoints the industry as well. I do not point an accusing finger only at the department or the minister. The fact that the industry did not respond as it ought to have disappoints me. 1 think it should have responded and shown some concern after the bill was given first reading.
My main concern about the consultative process relates to the provinces. I think one of the most important parts in the debate on second reading is contained in the following part of
Fisheries Act
the minister's statement as reported on May 16 in Hansard at page 5669.
In the application of the pollution provisions of the Fisheries Act to industry, we try to work co-operatively with provincial governments. Over many months leading up to the final preparation of this legislation, my officials consulted with their provincial counterparts. Many of the proposals in this bill are a result of those consultations, and I might say that in some cases provincial input helped us to improve this legislation. To the best of our knowledge, all provincial fisheries ministers are supportive. Several provincial ministers of environment or resources have written to me outlining some concerns over the impact of certain environmental aspects of the legislation, asking that there be some discussion of this at the meeting of the Canadian council of resource and environment ministers to be held in Saskatoon on June 1 and 2.
The minister went on to say:
1 see no problem in ensuring that provincial concerns can be fully met and considered in time for the committee's consideration of this bill, if the House so agrees to passage.
1 do not question the minister's statement that there was consultation with various provincial counterparts. 1 suggest that the clear evidence brought out in committee showed that provincial governments-not ministers or their departments- opposed the legislation on this basis: there had been lack of consultation. I suggest, if the consultative process worked vis-a-vis fisheries ministers, the fact that it did not work in the case of environment and resource ministers is inexcusable and indefensible. Since the federal government has a history of consulting with regard to environmental legislation, the provincial governments have every reason to expect they would be consulted in advance, and were consequently lulled into thinking that no major amendments to the Fisheries Act would be passed in the absence of consultation. That, 1 suggest, puts the government in an indefensible position. 1 suggest that the department was obligated to consult with the provinces before going ahead with the substantial amendments incorporated in Bill C-38.
They had an obligation before first reading when the bill was in the draft stage. Frankly, it was fairly widely circulated among certain people in certain departments. After first reading they had an obligation to contact the various ministers of environment and resources personally and state that this was their draft legislation which received first reading on February 21. If there were matters of concern to them, or matters which they would like to have discussed with the federal government, they should have been told to contact the department. That is the least that would be expected because of the history of the consultative process on environmental legislation. 1 support that history, process, and policy.
One could anticipate provincial objection. There is no question that this is a massive movement into an area that the provinces have considered their jurisdiction. 1 do not think that was ever denied in committee by anyone.
1 am not arguing the constitutionality of it, but when we start talking about water intake and that sort of thing, there is no doubt that this is an area where provincial governments feel they have had rather exclusive jurisdiction for some time.
80018-5 lVz

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
Whether that feeling is correct or incorrect constitutionally, I make no comment.
When that situation exists, there must surely be a heavy onus on the federal government when it proposes substantial and substantive changes to the Fisheries Act to go through the consultative process. In my view that process in connection with Bill C-38 was a failure.
It particularly disturbs me when I find that probably the consultative process with provincial ministers of fisheries was satisfactory but was unsatisfactory with provincial ministers of environment and resources. That has to be completely inexcusable. If one can consult and secure the concurrence of a provincial minister of fisheries, and apparently the provincial minister of the environment perceives he was not consulted, that is not an acceptable situation.
Point number two is the interpretation of this legislation. I suffer the advantage or disadvantage, and I am not sure which, of looking at this legislation through the eyes of a lawyer. I construe it strictly. Maybe in this case it is a disadvantage. The history of the Fisheries Act, as I understand it, was an interpretation that is much broader and much more liberal than might be construed by someone with legal training, reading it as a lawyer might read it.
If the tendency was to interpret this legislation strictly according to legal tenets, it may be in some difficulty. I remember very well one clause that I read as imposing strict liability on a group of people or potential defendants. However, I was assured in committee that that was not the case, that to be guilty or to offend this particular section would require if not intent at least negligence. I will be interested in seeing how the courts interpret that section.
Groups of people may be perfectly innocent of any intent or negligence and may be found guilty under these sections. The owner of a deleterious substance, he who has control over that substance or he who permitted that substance to fall into a waterway, any one of the three are jointly and severally liable under that section. I sincerely hope that some reason will prevail in terms of the interpretation of that section.
I sincerely hope that in terms of the constitutional analysis of this legislation that we will not wind up with the situation about which fears were expressed by some departmental deputy ministers and other provincial witnesses. They suffer a very reasonable fear that, because of certain principles of constitutional law, certain provincial and environmental legislation may become invalid. That disturbs me very much. 1 wonder whether we should have been more persistent in committee in insisting that provision be made in the legislation that would indicate an intent not to occupy certain provincial fields. However, that will be left to the courts.
The final point is the implementation of this legislation. If it is implemented with a heavy hand there will be some serious difficulties. I have no hesitation in supporting legislation designed to catch and punish him who wilfully pollutes or him whose negligence is such that he simply does not care about environment and pollution. I have no hesitation in supporting

strong legislation in that regard. However, I have serious reservations about the ability to use this legislation under the guise of fisheries to determine the course of development, construction, non-construction, preservation or desecration of land that would normally be the responsibility of the provincial and municipal governments.
If a heavy hand were applied under this legislation, the location of industry could easily be controlled under this act. That has not been and I hope it never becomes the history of the Fisheries Act, but I point out that serious potential danger.
For example, the environmental protection service, which to my knowledge has never used the act in that fashion, should not become zealous and seek to catch in the same net the wilful or negligent polluter, innocent polluters who make mistakes or those who have no control over the mistakes of others such as the owner of a deleterious substance who had no control over and was not negligent in permitting that substance to pollute.
In closing, I say again that my colleagues in this party want a strong and enforceable Fisheries Act. It is needed. Amendments to this legislation were needed. I hope that the consultative process will be restored. It has been damaged in some degree in Bill C-38. I hope the consultative process under the act, including the amendment passed tonight, will be used wisely and often. I hope the act will be interpreted not as a lawyer would interpret it but in a more liberal fashion. Finally, I hope it will be implemented with reason. If we are going to fight pollution in this country, co-operation and consultation are much better than penalty.
I say again that the government is very fortunate to have secured the co-operation, assistance and input of other parties in this House in view of the history of this legislation in which I, if I were a government member, would take no great pride.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I will not take too much time of the House because I am very concerned that we pass this bill on third reading tonight. I think it is a very useful piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) summed it up very well when he pointed out that the legislation has all-party support. The approach the government has taken in drafting the bill and in being fairly reasonable in committee with respect to amendments was a wise one. I know some of the opposition amendments succeeded. The value of the bill is not merely its capacity to put some clout into protecting fish habitat; the real value of the bill, and I am not sure the government understand it yet, is that it says something about valuing our renewable resources. It places a premium on our renewable resources. The measure before us happens to deal with fish, but we can all think of other resources on which a higher premium ought to be placed, for example, our forests. With this bill, the debate on the nature of an industrial society has been moved forward.
June 28, 1977

We constantly talk in this House about ways of creating more jobs. In seeking this objective we most often go the traditional route by establishing industries, industries which are bound to phase workers out through improved technology, and decrease the cost of the product. A better answer, surely, would be to raise the value of our renewable resources and put more people to work in the renewable resources sector. In my opinion the government deserves credit for what it has done by way of this bill.
I am sure every member of the committee has been approached by various companies and groups with regard to the bill-I am thinking particularly of the mining and forestry industry. Knowing the members of the committee, I think I can say all of them have studied with care the briefs presented to them. They raise rather serious examples to show that should the bill be implemented with a heavy hand there is likely to be somewhat serious industrial dislocation. I have to say to both the mining and the forest industries in British Columbia that if they had shown a little more concern about the value of the fish in the province they might not have been faced with this bill today. I believe that industry and fish can live together. There is no need for them to be in conflict. But at the moment conflict is the rule rather than the exception; the mining industry, in particular, has ignored the value of the fishing resource time and time again.
The best example is probably that placed before the committee by the B.C. Wildlife Federation. They dealt with a river which runs very close to my riding, actually the old riding of Fraser Valley West-the Coquitlam River. Twenty years ago this river produced between 4,000 and 5,000 pink salmon, the same number of Chum salmon, between 1,500 and 2,000 Cohoe salmon, and the same number of steelhead trout.
In its wisdom the municipality decided to allow gravel mining operations right in the bed of the river. Subsequently such operations were carried out on the banks of the river but the silt-laden water that went into the stream destroyed the fish habitat. The difficulty was that this did not necessarily constitute a violation of the Fisheries Act because it could not satisfactorily be proven that the spawn itself was being destroyed. In fact what was being destroyed was the habitat, so the fish were not spawned at all. If this fishery had been maintained instead of the gravel industry, the economic value of the Coquitlam River fishing resource would today be $4 million a year. That is a measure of the destruction which has gone on in the past. Therefore 1 say to the mining industry, to the forest industry and to other industries which are concerned about these provisions that if they would co-operate with the people of British Columbia and with the Department of Fisheries I firmly believe the bill we are considering does not need to be destructive and that it can do the job of bringing back this precious resource.
In the Fraser River, the anadromous fish stock has declined by some 50 per cent in the last 30 years. We can bring this resource back and we can stop what has been a massive and concerted attack on the fish habitat.
Fisheries Act
I must say I had some initial reservations about the strict liability provisions of the bill, but thinking back to some of the legal principles of Rylands and Fletcher, since industry decides to place deleterious substances into the environment, since it decides to move those substances, I frankly do not see it is immoral that strict liability should attach to those who move those substances. After all, who is placing those substances into the environment to damage the resource? Therefore the screams which come from industry on this matter have fallen on deaf ears in this House, as I think they should. In my opinion we have to quit playing around nervously and put the onus where it belongs. The onus is on those who bring deleterious substances into the environment.
Of course, I am disappointed that the House did not see fit to accept the amendment which would have given the minister discretion to shut down those rivers which are mercury-polluted as a result of which the health of Canadians could be affected. I think it is inconsistent for us to be talking about giving the minister very substantial additional powers and yet he refuses to accept a key power by which he would have the authority not merely to protect the health of fish but also, perhaps, to protect the health of humans at the same time.
As I say, I am in general agreement with the remarks previously made by the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot. I think the government is entitled to be congratulated on having brought this bill forward. Again, though, I would draw attention to the fact that it carries all-party support. I am satisfied that it is a necessary pre-condition to the renewal of recreational and commercial fishing in British Columbia.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the bill before us, in the consideration of which I have participated throughout second reading, committee stage, and now at report stage and third reading, I would say there are some concerns which have persisted. One of them was recently recalled to my mind when the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) brought forward his amendment.
Turning to the minister's statement made in the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I would like to refer to page four of his address to that committee on June 16. The minister at that time referred to the impact of pollution on our rivers and said: "How many English Wabagoons can those who rely on Canada's fisheries stand?" He then went on to say, as can be found on page five of his statement:
The Fisheries Act exists for the people of Canada to protect their common property fish resource. The Fisheries Act is important to the fishermen of Canada, many of whom do not have alternate employment opportunities and many of them of native origin.
In light of those statements alone contained in the minister's speech to the committee, I am surprised at the actions of the government in voting against the amendment proposed by the hon. member for New Westminster today.
I should like to deal with another concern which is raised at page 4 of the minister's speech of the same date, and which reads as follows:

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
The facts are in stark contrast to the imaginary problems which could arise through some possible irresponsible application of some part of the Fisheries Act by some fisheries officers at some time, in some places.
It would be probably a much more comfortable situation if I did not have to speak at third reading and acknowledge the fact that within the Kootenay West there is an equal mix and balance between industry and those whose principal concern is the impact of industry on the environment. Elowever, 1 am not prepared to duck that particular responsibility. For example, there are companies taking water from the Columbia River and putting it back in: we have Cominco Ltd, Canadian Cellulose Pulp and Paper, Canadian Cellulose Saw Mills; and we have Kootenay Forest Products on Kootenay Lake, and Triangle Pacific on Slocan Lake, which subsequently flows into the Kootenay and thence into the Columbia system.
There is also a variety of mines which are in production from time to time. Their systems require the intake and outflow of water. The H. B. Mine is an example. I should like to draw attention to one situation which occurred with the H. B. Mine. One day they had a fracture in their line leading to their settling pond, and a couple of so-called environmentalists who were driving by noticed this outflow going across the highway. H. B. Mine is only a couple of miles up the mountain side over a good road. What did they do? They did not drive up the mountainside to H. B. Mine and tell them that they had a serious break in their outflow which was causing it to go into the Salmo River and not into their settling pond. Instead they travelled to Nelson and reported it to a fisheries officer who, some hours or days later, was able to take responsible action.
Charges were laid against H. B. Mine. In dealing with that particular case the judge chastised most severely those two so-called environmentalists who would rather penalize industry and catch them with an accidental spill than resolve the matter by going directly to the plant and advising them of the problem.
There is no question that there has to be a balance; there is no question that industry has some very legitimate concerns. If it becomes apparent that the ministry is using an iron fist within the scope of this bill, then they are going to be in trouble. Officials may satisfy a community of 4,000, 20,000 or 100,000 people for a week or two weeks when because of an accidental spill, an industry is shut down. But if their action is not a reasoned action, taken with a proper balance in decisionmaking, and if they go in with the clout which some official thinks he has, and may well have under this bill, as I say they may find they have satisfied the environmental concerns of the community for the first week. But when the pay cheques are no longer coming in, they may suddenly find that the situation has reversed itself. Of course I am dealing with the so-called imaginary problems to which the minister alluded. In statements made by members at the standing committee level, I think those concerns were addressed to the officials, and the minister has gone on record in assuring us that they will use a reasoned balance.
I do not want the people in my riding, or people anywhere in Canada, to think I am espousing the cause of industry, because
	.
I am not. I am aware of the environmental damage which has been created by some industries. There is no question of that. The evidence is on the record. Certainly there are those who seem simply not to care, probably and possibly as a result of previous amendments to the Fisheries Act and the introduction of environmental legislation. On the other hand there are those industries which have spent millions of dollars on improvement of their efforts to combat pollution. If we are going to force upon an industry the expenditure of millions of dollars to improve an effluent discharge by a decimal percentage point, then I ask where is the reasoned balance? I am sure those in my riding who share my environmental concern will accept that point and that argument.
There is one other area which gives me cause for concern, and I should like to refer to the minister's speech at page 8, which reads as follows:
For example, there is an over-all blanket requirement for the provision of fishways at all obstructions if this is demanded by the minister. Owners or proposers in fact cannot even start construction until the minister has approved the form and capacity, and location of fish passage structures at dams. I do not always exercise this authority; in fact, I weigh the relative value; the value of a dam for whatever purposes proposed and the value of the fisheries resources.
I wish we could have had statements of that sort from the minister during the period in which we were dealing with the Columbia River treaty. 1 wonder if the minister is going to have the intestinal fortitude to live up to his word, when it comes to the Revelstoke Dam. Regardless of the Columbia River treaty, will the minister have the guts to live up to his word when it comes to the diversion of the Kootenay River into the Columbia River? As a result of the Columbia River treaty, already we are finding that the nutrients in the Kootenay Lake have changed, that water temperatures have changed, and that fisheries have dropped dramatically. Under that treaty we saw the total destruction of the spawning beds, all except one, that for the famous Kootenay Lake trout, a special individual species running up to 30 pounds and 40 pounds. We have seen the destruction of the spawning beds of the Kokanee, a landlocked salmon, sometimes called redfish. It is true they have put in false spawning beds which seem to have helped the Kokanee to recover. The facts are that fisheries have degenerated and deteriorated.
If the minister is not prepared to use his clout nothing will happen. There will be no freshwater fishery on the Columbia system or on the Kootenay . I want the minister to know that the people of Kootenay West and the people of British Columbia will be watching very closely to see what he and his department do about this type of construction which in some cases, I believe, could be classified as destruction.
I wonder whether this minister would have insisted upon fish ladders at the Keenleyside Dam-that dam constructed under the Columbia Treaty which we discover now was not needed. Regarding the minister's statement at committee on hydro projects or dams of any nature, I want him to know that I, and probably a lot of other members, will be watching very closely to see what he and his department are doing.
June 28, 1977


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to restrict my remarks on Bill C-38 to a rather narrow area. 1 am not a member of the committee and it would not be wise for me to try to go through this bill in detail. The part I wish to speak about is the absence of any provision for, or clarification of, the means by which communities can be reimbursed for their work in cleaning up small oil spills where the culprit is unknown, I take it that deleterious objects on the water would include an oil slick.
I am not quite certain who is taking responsibility for this bill at the present time, Mr. Speaker. It may be the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Fleming), but I hope whoever is responsible will take note of this problem and give an answer later in the debate, or perhaps even write me about it.
This is not a great financial problem, but an important principle is involved. The government has advocated that communities and municipalities make plans to cope with oil spills, and has set up a maritime pollution disaster fund to reimburse moneys spent when the offending vessel cannot be identified. The money for this fund is collected from the tankers and oil companies.
I became interested in this matter about four years ago when there was an oil spill at the community of Oak Bay near Victoria. It happened in the evening and they could see the oil slick coming to shore. We all know that the best time to clean a spill up is while it is waterborne, and this is what they did, finishing at about four o'clock in the morning. They spent about $400 on the project, but then came the hard part. They tried for months to collect the money and, although they had properly receipted vouchers, were unable to get anywhere.
I took the matter up with the Minister of Transport of the day, the Hon. Jean Marchand. He had already told us that transport was in a mess, and certainly from the way the Oak Bay claim was handled this seemed to be so. When 1 pursued the matter I was referred to the Department of the Environment, but had no better success there. During a debate in this House the then minister of fisheries, the Hon. Jack Davis said I should have brought it to his attention and he undertook to see that Oak Bay was reimbursed. Unfortunately an election was called and he disappeared from the scene; he later resurfaced as a member of the provincial government of British Columbia.
Some two years after the event it was established that the Maritime Pollution Disaster Fund came under the Department of Transport, so 1 wrote to it. I ran into a very highly intelligent and capable civil servant, who was most polite and obliging. He knew the act from one end to the other, upside down and backwards, and would do anything except pay any money out of the maritime pollution disaster fund, which by then had grown to $30 million. I have kept on trying ever since. The fund went up to $40 million. At one time when I
Fisheries Act
asked a question on the order paper as to its size, that is what they told me. Now it is $48 million.
1 cannot say that the fund is a disaster-it is a disaster fund-but out of all the money they have collected up to date, they have paid out only $300, and some to a fisherman in Gaspe. It took a great deal of willpower on my part to resist the curiosity which I felt and not to inquire further as to how that fisherman in Gaspe managed to get some money out of the fund, because the main excuse that was given to me for not paying the municipality in my constituency was that they did not have prior Privy Council approval before they started to work.
1 realize that with the time zone changes a man from Gaspe would have more chance of waking up cabinet ministers in the middle of the night than we do in Victoria, but 1 do not know what would happen if an outlying municipality tried to wake up the Privy Council to get their approval before it attacked an oil spill at 4 a.m. Ottawa time.
It is now four years since we first attempted to receive any succour from the government, and I see nothing in this bill that will make it any easier to get any money out of the maritime pollution disaster fund. 1 hope the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport or the parliamentary secretary will clarify whether they simply intend to collect money forever for the fund so it will end up like the pension fund for the civil servants, or whether they intend somehow, some day, to pay money out to communities which do the sensible thing and clean up oil spills before they pollute their beaches.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker,
I can certainly keep within the time limits. I understand there is a disposition to have the measure passed tonight, but 1 should be able to finish well within the 20 minutes.
The reason I am speaking is primarily that in examining the bill before us this evening I find that 12 of its 22 clauses involve a field somewhat special to me, that is, the power of ministers, of the Governor in Council, to exercise discretion, to make decisions, and to regulate. This can be a pretty awesome power.
As everybody knows, it has become a very common habit in the legislative process today to include the right to make regulations and orders in council. 1 suspect, without being all that specific, that at least 80 per cent of our legislation includes that power, and it is a matter that has concerned members on all sides of the House before, and will continue to concern them. 1 made the point previously that it is not so much the fact that these powers are written into modern day legislation that should concern us as the problem that we should be able to deal with that sort of thing effectively. Whether we do or not, 1 really cannot say.
I know, as co-chairman of the committee to which these regulations and orders in council are referred on a rather generous basis, that we do our best to deal with the sub-delegated authority, what I would like to call the shadow parliament which takes over when we, the House of Commons and the other place, have had our say. The fact is, however-and I

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
think everyone would recognize this as a fact of life-that once legislation has cleared this House, we tend to go on to other matters. That legislation is over and done with, as far as we are concerned. Presumably the watchdog committee, the Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, has to play some role, but sometimes I have doubts as to whether that is a sufficient manner of dealing with the rules and regulations which develop from our legislation.
In any event, to be very specific, there are 22 clauses in this bill which deal with discretionary and regulatory options, and having looked at the bill some new thoughts about the problems which can arise have come to me. One new thought is simply this: we are in a rather sensitive area involving provincial jurisdiction over waters which are inland, and through this legislation we are attempting to exercise federal jurisdiction. Provincial acts are very much like the legislation we are considering this evening. Regulations can be made under those provincial acts, and I think they probably create a fair amount of difficulty for the people in the pulp and paper industry. I will follow up my theme as I make my speech. I have made a preamble, and now I am going to make a speech.
1 would like to quote from a letter which was sent to me by a very distinguished Nova Scotian who served in the House of Commons very well on behalf of the Halifax constituency. The letter is from John A. Dickey. I think he was a member from about 1947 until about 1957. He is now the president of Nova Scotia Pulp Limited. In his letter Mr. Dickey makes a point about the importance of the pulp and paper industry to the economic life of Nova Scotia and of Canada. Mr. Dickey's letter reads in part as follows:
While Canada possesses only 10 per cent of the world's supply of wood fibre it has for many years had the largest export of wood fibre in the world. In Canadian terms the industry is the largest Canadian earner of foreign exchange. This stature as you can appreciate has been achieved not because of a monopoly position in the raw material for the industry but by reason of ability to manufacture and export wood fibre in its various usable forms more economically than our competitors. Unhappily at the present time by reason of cost increases for the Canadian industry which are out of line with those of our major competitors, notably in wage rates, the Canadian industry has essentially lost its competitive advantage. By any standards the Canadian industry has met world standards in pollution control and environmental protection though this is inevitably a long and continuing process of improvement. We feel very strongly that this is no time to impose further strains upon the industry's struggle for survival beyond those absolutely necessary to achieve what is on balance the public good.
In an appearence before the committee which dealt with this measure the minister of the environment for the province of Nova Scotia, the Hon. Vincent J. MacLean, made what 1 thought was a pretty good point. I will put it on the record here. It is, of course, on the record of the committee proceedings.
In summary, the province of Nova Scotia does not believe that the Fathers of Confederation intended that the Fishery power extended to the federal government should be the supreme power with respect to water resources management or to local works and undertakings. In particular, we do not believe that such pre-eminence to Fisheries matters should pertain to waters internal to the province.

If this legislation is to be effective, it must enter that delicate field.
Leaving aside that aspect of the dominion-provincial conflict, may I suggest, as I have suggested previously, that when we deal with a sensitive area such as this where the regulatory power is really the name of the game, much more so than the bare bones of the legislation, we should adopt the practice of bringing before the committee considering the legislation the draft of the regulations which will be effective under that legislation. I know those regulations will eventually be referred to the statutory instruments committee for its surveillance, along with other regulations and other statutory instruments. I am the co-chairman of that committee; I think it is the best committee in parliament; and I think we do a darned good job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Jardine McCleave: I may say, if I blow my own horn, at least I blow it at myself instead of at other people. We tend to be a special crowd in that committee and perhaps not fully appreciative of some of the minutiae or major points of the regulations which come before us. If we have no farmers on the committee, perhaps we cannot assess well all the regulations dealing with the farming industry. If we do not have fishery experts on the committee like my hon. friend from South Shore, we may suffer from the same disability with respect to fisheries matters, although our intentions may be the best in the world. Of course we deal with legal matters. I suggest that not one legal matter escapes the eye of the committee, although perhaps we are missing some of the practical, down-to-earth points concerning the actual operations of trades and industries which are affected by the regulations. That is why I make my point again, and I hope some day it will grow into a school of thought.
I want this practice to grow up that, when it is practicable and possible, the regulations which must accompany an act should be drafted and presented to the committee which deals with the act in the first place. That would give us another shot at parliamentary direction, direction as to what the act intends to do. True, as time goes by these regulations will be monitored. As anyone will tell you who has ever attended meetings of the statutory instruments committee, some of the regulations which accompany some pieces of legislation are incredibly voluminous and would fill many volumes on anybody's book shelf. Nevertheless, I suggest that the practice of looking at draft regulations initially would be a good one. I hope a school of thought holding that opinion will grow up and I intend to do all 1 can to found that particular school of thought.
When regulatory rights accompany any legislation, the regulations should be examined by the committee which considers the act as well. In that way our parliamentary performance will improve 100 per cent. The Canadian Manufacturers' Association is of the same school of thought, I may say. Mr. Roy A. Phillips, executive director, touched on this point in the letter he wrote me on June 23, 1977, a paragraph of which I shall quote. He said:
June 28, 1977

The real problem with Bill C-38 is its legislative scheme. The bill creates blanket offences by turning most people who conduct themselves normally in an aquatic environment into criminals-unless their conduct has been exempted either by ministerial authorization or regulation by Governor in Council. This leads to the paradoxical result that this wide power of exemption may be desirable if only to arm the government with the means of 'decriminalizing' normal conduct.
We should consider some of the fines that are set forth in Bill C-38. Consider the nature of the offences that are created thereby. Consider that you, Mr. Speaker, and 1 might inadvertently be breaking the law by putting our toes into a pond, perhaps trampling on a small fish and thereby destroying some of the aquatic environment. That would not be done intentionally. We would not want to be subjected to some large fine, some process of law, or be hauled away by the scruff of the neck into a court. Nonetheless it is a possibility that all of these things could happen.
1 realize that 1 am speaking after the fact. I do not intend to oppose the bill. I understand it has received the approbation of the committee. Those people worked hard and long. 1 understand the enormous battle that goes on between the environmentalists and that particular industry. It is not for me to come in late in the day to raise this again, except that I do have to view some of the powers set forth. For example, in Clause 9 on page 10 of what we are considering this evening, it states:
An inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter any place, premises, vehicle or vessel, other than a private dwelling place or any part of any place, premises, vehicle or vessel used as a permanent or temporary private dwelling place, where he reasonably believes-
I suppose in short that means the inspector is entitled to board a ship if the owner of the ship has not used it for his private dwelling place. Most people would consider that a ship is not a private dwelling place. To do that without the benefit of a search warrant is an extremely dangerous provision to have written into the legislation of this country.
Clause 12 on page 16 reads in part:
35. Any fishery officer may search or break open and search any building, vehicle, vessel or place where he has reason to believe that any fish taken in contravention of this Act or the regulations, or anything used in contravention thereof, is located."
Again, that is a very large power. I wonder if it is really necessary. Modern communications being what they are, somebody could apply for a search warrant. At least then there would be the intervening step of some judicial officer who may say, "Slow down; maybe you do not have reasonable and probable grounds; maybe you are a bit excited without due cause."
Those are my thoughts on this. I gather somebody else would like to make an intervention before we pass this measure and I am pleased to yield the floor.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I shall be as brief as 1 possibly can. I think 1 have some responsibility on behalf of my minister to respond to some of the concerns
Fisheries Act
expressed by members opposite. If that goes a moment or two past 10:30, perhaps hon. members will be kind enough not to notice the clock and, if it is agreeable to hon. members, we might bring this debate to a conclusion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has asked me to express his disappointment at not being able to be here today at the report stage and third reading of Bill C-38. Fie was unable to return from British Columbia in the short time available since we received confirmation that Bill C-38 would be discussed in the House today. He has asked me to make a brief statement which he would have presented had he been here. It is as follows:
"I am pleased to speak at third reading of Bill C-38, an act to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof. This bill received first reading on February 21, and at second reading on May 16 it received unanimous support in principle from all parties of this House. Since then the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has devoted seven sessions to Bill C-38. The views of industry, several provinces and some special interest groups have been heard. It is important to note the hard work of this standing committee. They extended hours of hearings to allow for all who wished to express their views. I would personally like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to members of all parties who participated in the standing committee sessions dealing with Bill C-38.
"These committee sessions have resulted in many improvements which will help us in managing the important fisheries resources of Canada. All parties have contributed in this process and all have recognized the need for amendments to the Fisheries Act to allow us to deal more effectively with poaching, fish habitat protection and pollution of Canada's fisheries waters. 1 personally attended all of the committee s clause by clause sessions on Bill C-38 and know how diligent were the members to ensure that constructive views presented to the committee were reflected in the revised bill now before us. As a result, definitions have been sharpened, many provisions have been modified to reflect better the need and intent of the legislation, powers have been scrutinized closely, the application of the existing provisions has been questioned, and clarification has been sought concerning the future application of any new provisions."
The minister concludes: "I am grateful that Bill C-38 received this scrutiny and hopeful that with agreement on third reading it will soon be given consideration in the other place."
Again, on behalf of my minister, I wish to thank members of the opposition parties for their close co-operation throughout the committee review stage.
Perhaps I might, as parliamentary secretary, make a few brief observations in response to the opinions expressed by hon. members during the discussion tonight. I note the concern expressed by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) about the problem of the shortage of fisheries officers to carry

June 28, 1977
Fisheries Act
out additional responsibility under this law. I know the hon. member raised this point in committee and that the minister responded to it there. 1 will draw the matter to his attention again. I also note the concern expressed by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), in particular about the question of fish guards and enforcement by the federal government of the powers set out under the act.
The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) expressed concern about what experts in the department call "mystery spills". While I am no expert in this area I will ensure that he gets an explanation of the situation shortly. He will thus have a response, as requested.
The official opposition spokesmen for matters concerning both fisheries and the environment raised the question of consultation. 1 would simply say that in my view there was a considerable amount of consultation in the course of seeking appropriate amendments over several years, leading to the point at which the bill was actually put together. The difficulty which then arose was that, once the bill had been assembled and placed before cabinet, there could not be consultation as to the form of the bill until it had been tabled in the House- there could not be consultation with other levels of government or with industry. It was tabled on February 21 and some months passed-not a great many-before we found ourselves in committee. I suggest there might well have been either a lack of alertness on the part of some industries with professional forces here in Ottawa to the tabling of the bill, or perhaps there might even be the possibility of certain groups not moving as quickly as they might have done in showing a response. In any event, I do believe that when they were heard in committee all sides did their very best to accommodate the various concerns expressed and, as a result of that co-operation, we now have a much better bill.
The hon. member for South Shore made a particular reference to Dr. Landis, the chief legal counsel, I believe, in the department of environment and resources in Ontario, and I know that Dr. Landis, while he did put forward several excellent amendments which were included in this bill, admitted himself in committee that he had spoken on a number of occasions-I think he suggested a dozen occasions-with officials of the department.
Our problem may be one of the general legislative process. Often it takes a year and a half or two years for a bill to go through the process of parliament. This one was tabled on February 21 and has been dealt with, once we got to that stage, rather promptly. Perhaps that is one of the difficulties- that industry and the provinces did not expect it to happen so quickly. At any rate, I believe we had positive activity in committee and most of the major concerns were responded to by us.
The hon. member for Kootenay West and the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) expressed worry about the use of a heavy hand in applying this legislation. As they are aware, that was discussed in committee. I believe the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) also referred to that and expressed a fear that that kind of power in the bill can be used indiscriminately. Not one witness before the committee from industry, or from the provinces, suggested that the government had acted in a heavy handed way with the Fisheries Act as it exists. Although it is very similar in power at this point in time, this bill is simply an extension of some of those powers. I want to commend the even handedness of the department, the officials and the minister in carrying out the law. I certainly share the concern of all members in hoping that that practice continues.
Finally, if I may, I echo my minister in commending all hon. members, especially those active in committee who helped prove that thoughtful, positive exchanges can improve legislation and meet major concerns, as they did so well in the case of Bill C-38.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being 10.30 o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until Wednesday, June 29, 1977, at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 10.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Wednesday, June 29, 1977