1977-05-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the consensus at the recent summit meetings that inflation and unemployment are priority problems, Canada leading in the latter category and being a strong contender in the former, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That the Prime Minister make a statement on motions of new initiatives, if any, of the government to deal with these severe Canadian problems rather than pirouetting around the difficulties of our country.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be done only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM EXCESSIVE SALARY INCREASE GRANTED TO PRESIDENT OF KAISER RESOURCES LIMITED-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under Standing Order 43. If anyone is opposed to the presentation of this motion I hope he will identify himself clearly. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House, noting that the President and Chief Executive Officer of Kaiser Resources Limited received a pay increase in 1976 of $60,363, while the employees of his companies were held to a 6 per cent increase in their hourly wage, and noting also that this massive increase of $60,363 was approved by the Anti-Inflation Board, expresses its sense of outrage and calls on the government to insist that restraint should apply to those at the top, not just to those in the lower and middle income brackets.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The provisions of Standing Order 43 require that for the presentation of such a motion for debate the unanimous consent of the House is required. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who said no to that?


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which I am sure will be given consideration. The continuing and rapid deterioration of the economic structure of the Port au Port and Bay St. George area in western Newfoundland, as a result of the impending closure of Labrador Linerboard Mill which will affect some 2,100 jobs directly or indirectly, demands more than the passive action presently being directed toward that part of Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald):
That this government orders that an immediate review of decentralization policy affecting the province of Newfoundland be carried out to consider the western sector of that province in order to provide alternative employment, a sensible direction of policy which is justifiably in line with government objectives, and existing infrastructure.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion can only be presented for debate in the House with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA SUMMER GAMES
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the new addition to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) family, and I refer to the Newfoundland dog, Rideau '77, presented to him and his family today by the Summer Games Committee,-I promise no barking or yapping at the government today, because of the occasion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
80016-18'/z

May 16, 1977
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House supports the holding of the Canada Summer Games in St. John's, Newfoundland, during August, 1977, congratulates the committee on the preparations made for the holding of the games and urges all members of parliament to attend the games in St. John's, during August, when Newfoundland hospitality will assure them a visit not to be forgotten.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have no hesitation in recognizing the importance of the motion, its desirability and its cordial terms, but have some doubts about its urgency and pressing necessity.

[ Translation]


CONGRATULATIONS TO LES CANADIENS HOCKEY TEAM ON WINNING STANLEY CUP
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering that on Saturday May 14 the Canadiens won a brilliant victory and once again carried off the Stanley Cup, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That congratulations be sent to the directors, coach and players for their success and for the fine way in which they contribute to the international prestige of Canada in the world of hockey where their fame is proverbial.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. For exactly the same reasons stated about the previous motion, I naturally refuse to put the question to the House under Standing Order 43.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Prime Minister relates to the original commitment made by this government, and repeated on occasion, with respect to the importance of eliminating regional disparities across Canada. In view of the fact that since 1970, the year after the Department of Regional Economic Expansion was created, the differential in the unemployment level between the Atlantic area and the rest of Canada has risen from 8.7 per cent to something like 55 per cent last year, in the province of Quebec 37 per cent fewer jobs have been created during that same period as compared with the rest of the country, can the Prime Minister say how seriously the government views this

alarming growth in disparities between the five eastern provinces and the rest of the country, and, particularly, what steps are being taken to establish priorities which will substantially turn that direction around, so that these disparities may be substantially eliminated and not increased, as they have been during the past half dozen years?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government of course views this situation with considerable concern, because many hundreds of millions of dollars have been put into the Maritimes and the eastern parts of the country in order to correct some of the traditional, structural imbalances in this country. I remind the hon. member that in the budget, as recently as one month ago, we took specific fiscal steps in order to add to our effort to correct this imbalance.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Neither the Minister of Finance nor the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion have been able to indicate even one specific job created as a result of that specific fiscal measure. I point out that the recent Ontario budget indicated a net balance of trade deficit with the Atlantic provinces of some $1.5 billion, this indicating a loss of some 60,846 jobs from the Atlantic region. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether these figures have been studied by himself or any of his ministers? What steps are being taken generally to co-ordinate overall government policy with respect to regional disparity, or has it been just a one-shot affair under one department which is now fading into oblivion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel I can presume to say these figures must already have been drawn to the attention of the ministers. Lest they have not been, I will ensure that they are.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as in the Speech from the Throne last fall, which I am sure the Prime Minister will recall, there was no specific reference to the need for reform of the Regional Development Incentives Act, a program which has been part and parcel of the government since 1970 and which has now been reduced in terms of budgetary funds and restricted because of its rigid structures, so much so that it has been renegotiated with three separate provinces in terms of separate development agreements, can the Prime Minister indicate if he has instructed either the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or any other minister to develop permanent job creation programs so that the economy in these five eastern provinces can begin to function as they should?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is assuming that such steps have not already been taken. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the very, very considerable funds which have been spent in those provinces and which indeed have created jobs. The reality is that they have not created jobs at the rate we would like and we will find every other way we can to increase this rate.
May 16, 1977


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Since Quebec and British Columbia complain about the length of time his department is taking before concluding regional economic development agreements related to particular projects in the two provinces, can the minister explain the reasons for this delay and the nature of problems delaying the signature of such agreements?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to go into the details of small difficulties that can arise during our negotiations, because that would take too much of our time, but I can say to the hon. member that at last two agreements have been signed recently with the British Columbia government. Another one will probably be signed and announced in the very near future, and I hope that discussions going on on two other very important matters for the British Columbia economic development will be concluded within the next few weeks and that we will be able to announce the signature of another agreement in this field.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL PROCEED WITH QUEBEC PROJECTS AGREED TO BEFORE NOVEMBER 15
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, in view of the reservations and objections the legislative programs of the independentist government of Quebec have given rise to throughout the country, can the minister tell the House whether all the projects his department was engaged in prior to November 15 last in Quebec are being pursued according to the original time table and whether their respective budgets are being spent without restrictions?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the House and the hon. member that the programs we had undertaken with the provincial government prior to last November's election are being implemented as planned, except for very few minor details which have nothing to do with the change of government. Minor adjustments, we always run into in developing and implementing those agreements with the various provincial governments. In short, no major changes or problems have developed in the application of the current programs with the province of Quebec.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the minister correctly, he indicated to the House that some agreements involve problems. Can the minister be specific about those?
Oral Questions


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, no: I did not say there were problems. In every agreement, a provision allows for adjustments in the sense that for instance, the two governments agree to do certain things under a secondary agreement and it is understood that in the course of its implementation, at the request of the provincial government, we will accept minor changes. There have been a few of those but only of minor importance which are not even worthy of mention. In short, 1 can say that no serious problem has come up.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the President of the Privy Council. I notice he has just stepped out of the chamber, temporarily I hope. Possibly I might have permission to postpone my question.


INQUIRY WHETHER TERMICA SILICE LIMIT6E WILL OBTAIN GRANT-MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As House leader of the Social Credit Party and considering the present political and economic context in the province of Quebec-I hope the minister will understand the importance of my question-and considering also that Termica Silice Limitee whose head office is located in Noranda, in the riding of Temiscamingue, made an application for a subvention to allow it to exploit a natural resource of the area, while creating a certain number of jobs, can the minister tell the House whether this company will get a favourable answer within a few days so it can go ahead with its project?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member for Bellechasse, whom I congratulate for the new responsibility his group gave him, that indeed I have had the application for about three weeks now and that a few days ago I met two promoters involved in this project with whom I discussed it at length. 1 agreed that a representative of my department could meet them any time to get more information on the extent and the implications of their project. I hope we will soon know what we can do. The House and the hon. member will realize that the promoters sent us this application only three weeks ago.


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER WILL TREAT QUEBEC REQUESTS THE SAME AS THOSE OF OTHER PROVINCES
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell the House whether, notwithstanding what the head of the Quebec government has said about him during the weekend, he is willing to consider the requests from

May 16, 1977
Oral Questions
Quebec on the same level as those from other provinces and to treat them accordingly?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, yes. Notwithstanding the statements made by the premier of Quebec about me last week, I must say this will not in any way change my attitude toward the province of Quebec and its citizens and that I am still willing to negotiate agreements with the Quebec government, of course within my responsibilities. I hope we can sign those agreements very soon, after our respective officials have presented and analyzed to my satisfaction the contents of those agreements. Because there is more to it than signing agreements and investing money in them: we must also make sure that what we will be doing under those agreements does meet the objectives at least we at DREE are pursuing.


POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING AGREEMENTS WITH QUEBEC
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
You will doubtless understand that 1 am somewhat worried by the remarks I heard this afternoon on the radio, as I was proceeding from Montmagny to Ottawa. A reporter was claiming that Quebec is no longer willing to negotiate agreements with the central government unless these agreements respect the sovereignty of the government of the province of Quebec, failing which there would be no agreement signed at all. Could the minister advise the House whether any similar statement was made in his presence during recent discussions with officials or political representatives of the Quebec government? If so is he in a position to inform the House of any such statements or conversations?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear of these remarks by a reporter, because the Quebec government and I never had to deal with or discuss the question of the province's jurisdiction or priorities in the sense indicated here. What we are proposing now fully respects Quebec's jurisdiction and priorities, for we are not trying in any way to stop the Quebec government from doing whatever it means to do. As a matter of fact, we are trying to accelerate the realization of projects in a number of Quebec areas about which we are especially concerned.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF CARIBBEAN DELEGATION TO COMMONWEALTH PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, may I just borrow half a minute to say that, during this past weekend we conducted, I think successfully, the Canadian regional meetings of the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and extended an invitation to representatives of the Caribbean region to join us. Our meetings were graced with a rather strong delegation from the Caribbean region. I think there was a very fruitful exchange between the two regions. We were also fortunate to have during the meetings the Secretary General of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, who is with us in the gallery today along with our Caribbean friends, Sir Robin Vanderfelt. May I ask Sir Robin and all our Caribbean visitors to rise for a moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Northern pipeline-request for clarification of PROPOSAL TO DEBATE ISSUE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council arising out of his statement in the House last Friday to the effect that there should be a triple veto on the construction of a northern pipeline, first by the National Energy Board, then by the government and finally by parliament. However, later in his speech the minister spoke of providing an opportunity to hear the views of parliament before any decision is taken. In order to prevent any misunderstanding, 1 should like to ask the minister whether he would clarify the situation and tell the House whether or not we are correct in assuming that the government is making a twofold commitment, first that when all reports have been made available there will be a debate in parliament to ascertain the views of the House, and secondly, that when the government has reached a decision with respect to a pipeline, parliament will have an opportunity to approve or reject the decision before any permit for the construction of a pipeline has been granted?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, that certainly is a succinct summary of my statement. I might add some qualifications to the interpretation. With respect to the triple veto, I said that a pipeline could not be built unless it had been recommended by the National Energy Board, by the government and then by parliament. I had not taken into account the contingency where no decision would be taken and no pipeline would be built. That is the only qualification I would make.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board report is expected some time in July and the right hon. Prime Minister has promised President Carter a decision by September 1, does this mean that, if parliament is recessed at the time, it will be called back into session in order to discuss the National Energy Board report and also to express its views with respect to the government's Final decision whether or not a pipeline should be built?
May 16, 1977


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, quite apart from the hon. member's reference to President Carter and the Prime Minister, 1 have stated that the intention of putting a motion on the order paper with respect to pipelines was to provide the House with an opportunity to express its views from time to time before final decisions were taken. That is still my view and my commitment. 1 realize the practical difficulty that I may have in carrying forward that commitment, but in this case I am encouraged that my commitment can be fulfilled because of the tardiness and slow passage of legislation in this House and that probably we will be here all of July.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, irrespective of whether the present legislative program keeps the House in session until August, surely the minister's commitment that parliament will have the final veto power on any decision to build a pipeline requires the additional commitment that if parliament is not sitting at that time-in the month of August and prior to September 1-that parliament will be called into session in order to express its views on the decision which the government has made. Can we have that commitment, otherwise the minister talking about triple veto power is absolutely meaningless?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I agree. On the triple veto scenario I posed, what the hon. member says is perfectly right. A decision taken by the National Energy Board and by the government has to be approved or rejected by parliament. It would be inconceivable that such a project can be undertaken without the specific approval of parliament. That is a view I repeat today.
I am not as certain how 1 relate the passage of legislation to the ongoing events that may take place in the summer-the keeping of the House and the recalling of the House. That was something that was very much in my mind and which had to be considered when I made my statement last Friday. I do not know the practical answer, but the principle still stands.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and it is related to the very serious unemployment situation which has doubled the national average both in northeastern and northwestern British Columbia. Having regard to the fact the agreement between the province and his department was signed and has never been implemented, and also having regard to the announcement the minister just made that two subagreements have been signed, both of them merely to study an already intolerable situation, is the minister in a position today to give us a more precise date as to the signing of agreements which would address themselves to the serious situation in which several of the industries find themselves?
Oral Questions
Can he tell us whether the umbrella agreement which was signed in 1974 is so out of date now that it does not really respect the priorities of the provincial officials?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, no, certainly not. The agreement we signed with the province is not out of date because the basic potential of the province lies in the development of its resources. In those two recent subagreements we signed, there might not be a complete answer to some of the questions asked by the hon. gentleman. When one looks at what we have tried to achieve, one will see that it was to find the best solution for creating new jobs in those parts of the province of British Columbia.
The $10 million being invested under the last agreement, although it is not a huge amount of money, is certainly going to go to the real potential of one resource of this province. One of the subagreements which we have under intensive negotiation right now is addressing itself to industrial development and as such will have a broad effect. We will try, with the province, to arrive at some kind of a strategy to promote the industrial development in some parts of the province, at least.


POSSIBILITY OF THREE FURTHER AGREEMENTS WITH BRITISH COLUMBIA
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, my question is not only supplementary to my previous question but supplementary to questions I have asked the minister and his predecessor since 1974. Would the minister confirm the fact that there are three agreements ready to be signed in British Columbia which would reflect the priorities of the British Columbia government and which would have been worked out with the encouragement of the federal department? Can he tell us what is holding up the signing of these agreements which would address themselves not only to the coal situation, which is now receiving another study, but also that of the wood converting industries and other industries in the area? I think he would agree there should be some dialogue with the senior minister in front of him so that we can finally get an answer to take home.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman will be in support of the agreement we are in the process of developing and will be in support of the two agreements we have already signed because they are likely to affect his regions. What we are discussing with the government of British Columbia is in line with the priorities set by that province. I am satisfied with what we will be trying to do together, and that is to support the best proposal we can obtain.


MEASURES TO PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE EMPLOYMENT FOR THOSE AFFECTED BY CLOSURE OF LABRADOR LINERBOARD MILL
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the same minister, taking into account another intolerable situation which exists in the province of Newfoundland. I wonder if the minister is now prepared to make a statement on what

May 16, 1977
Oral Questions
progress he is making with regard to the impending closure of the linerboard mill which will affect up to 2,100 jobs. Is he now prepared to show some flexibility in the directions of the DREE policy in order to be able to combat this disastrous situation which occurred?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, in the case of the Labrador Liner-board mill, unfortunately I do not see how we can give enough flexibility to any of DREE's policies to match the need and challenge of that particular case. Unfortunately, this is a case where, no matter what DREE tries to do, we will not be able to achieve taking over this particular firm which the province took over a few years ago but has not been able to find a way to get it on its feet because of marketing difficulties and the kind of products this factory was putting out. We will probably have to find some other product or some other company which might be interested in buying out this facility, bringing in new machinery to turn out a new product. That is obviously going to take a long time. It will require a complete change in approach. I hope we will be able to approach the province and succeed in rectifying the problem. At this point there is no good news that I can report.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, in view of the answer the minister gave me and in view of the fact there is no easy solution, I wonder if the minister would be prepared to decentralize segments of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion now existing in Newfoundland to show a physical presence in order to enable him to look at new initiatives, to rehabilitate present industry still existing and also to create new industry in line with the infrastructure which exists in that part of the province?


Marcel Lessard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have had under consideration for some time a possible decentralization of our offices in Newfoundland and some other parts of the country. 1 will probably be making a decision very soon to extend some of our services by having offices opened in other parts of the province of Newfoundland.


EFFECT OF CUTBACK IN AIR CANADA SERVICE ON DEVELOPMENT OF ATLANTIC AREA
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Since the minister admitted recently he was not sure of the implications that Air Canada's cutbacks in service might have on the potential development of Atlantic Canada, will the minister explain this lack of knowledge in view of the commitment made by the government, at the urging of our party, that regional economic development would be made possible by transportation as a tool for this purpose? At the same time, could he assure us the commitment made by his predecessors is still in effect?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, reduction of service by Air Canada will not greatly affect the economy of that province, although it will affect it to some degree. What we need to help the

industry out there is much better ground communication facilities and not better airline facilities. I suppose a better railway system, a better road system and a better tariff system will help those manufacturers move their goods to the centre of Canada. That will be much more appropriate than a few airline tickets.


REASON FOR FAILURE TO DEVELOP HYDROELECTRIC SITES IN ATLANTIC AREA
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's answer, but on this business of coordination with other departments, something on which his predecessors were quite strong, why in the energy field is there no real emphasis within the departments as far as general development agreements are concerned in such essential cornerstone projects as energy to create long-term assets so that we could alleviate the job problems and get assets which would be of some value in the future? I ask this keeping in mind that there are two potential hydroelectric sites in Newfoundland, 20 in Labrador, 5 on the Saint John River in New Brunswick, 5 in eastern Quebec as well as the Fundy tidal project, none of which are being developed, which, it seems to me, would be appropriate in the circumstances.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, that matter of hydroelectric resources development in Newfoundland and that part of Labrador has been considered extensively by the Newfoundland government of course but also by our department and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources in Ottawa, and we have agreed on a certain strategy. We have recognized the potential, as well as some of the difficulties inherent in the development of that potential. Again very recently two of my colleagues and some ministers of the provincial government of Newfoundland have had discussions about that and we have considered what could be done in the short, medium and long term to develop those energy resources in Newfoundland to serve the province's interests but also to incorporate them in a network to serve the Maritimes.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the same minister. Will the minister explain why, in a period of record unemployment, his department has cut back on its spending under the Regional Development Incentives Act, the one program which is directly aimed at permanent job creation? The DREE budget, as I understand, is up 11 per cent, but the RDIA budget is down 10 per cent.
May 16, 1977


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question really ought to be put to the minister when his estimates are before the standing committee.


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Supply and Services.
Considering the high percentage of unemployed in the construction industry in Montreal, that is 40 per cent, and since this high rate of unemployment could be considerably reduced if there were more housing starts in that region, and following the statements of the minister during the weekend to the effect that the use of Place Guy Favreau could be altered, could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to undertake the construction of Place Guy Favreau taking into account that with the co-operation with the provincial government the building could become a residence for senior citizens?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the comments of many citizens, several commentators of the mass media and some members of this House as well as the last suggestion of the hon. member show that questions are raised about the future use and design of Place Guy Favreau. The Minister of Public Works who is ultimately responsible for that building will certainly take into consideration the various representations made to him.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, but because of his absence and because of the involvement of the Prime Minister in this matter, I will put my question to the Prime Minister. I welcome him back to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: Regarding decentralization of government services, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated in his answer to me on April 26 that because of the introduction of the language bill, Bill 1, in the Quebec legislature, it appears that government action and future announcements in this regard pertaining to other parts of Canada will have to be held up. In his press conference on April 28 the Prime Minister said that, and I quote, "The minister is now
Oral Questions
waiting to see how the Act is going to come out before making any announcement on decentralization into Quebec."
Would the right hon. gentleman explain why, in so many words, the premier of Quebec indirectly by his actions is going to decide if decentralization is to go to other parts of Canada, particularly Cape Breton Island, and why does the government not proceed with its plans for decentralization to other parts of Canada and deal with Quebec when the minister sees, to use his own words, "what is going to happen on that score," namely, Bill 1 ?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure when the hon. member hears the eventual announcement by the minister, he will understand that decentralization is not only a very complicated package but an intricate one as well, and it means affecting various departments of government. They are all interlinked. Any decision which would move people in one direction in one province is not irrelevant to other moves, and we want to have a total picture of the possibilities before making that statement. That seems to be a very sensible way of proceeding.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the explanation of the right hon. gentleman as far as it goes, but in view of the fact that the right hon. gentleman also said, and I quote, "There would have been hundreds and thousands of jobs moving around the country and in Quebec in particular" why should Rene Levesque be making the decision as to whether the unemployed on Cape Breton Island may be given an opportunity for jobs? Why does the government not go ahead, in view of what has been said, with what can be done in other parts of Canada?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I may add-


An hon. Member:: What do you know, Charlie McCarthy.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: -to the previous answer, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said in the House last Friday that he had been in touch with Premier Alex Campbell of the province of Prince Edward Island on Friday last. Mr. Campbell assured him that when public servants were moved from this community to Prince Edward Island, there would indeed be Francophone education available for their children. He went on to say that he wished Premier Levesque of the province of Quebec would provide at least equal service for Anglophones moved into his province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: What's that got to do with the question?


Robert Muir: You've got the wrong island.
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM COMMONS DEBATES
[Stage Direction]
May 16, 1977

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance may 1 direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the disclosures in a Canadian Press report today to the effect that the head of Kaiser Resources Limited received a pay increase last year of over $60,000 and that the heads of other companies such as Massey-Ferguson, Bell Canada, Northern Telecom, Candel Oil, Canadian Homestead Oil, Imperial Oil and others received pay increases last year ranging from $10,000 to $22,000 a year, will the government take serious steps to see that the policy of restraint applies to those at the top the same as it does wage earners and others in the middle and lower income brackets?


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I read the Canadian Press report and brought it to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board. The board informed me that some of the guidelines and exceptions as stated in the article are wrong and that the policies are not as stated, but the board was asked to look into the matters referred to in the article, and it has agreed to do so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that some weeks ago I asked a question about one of these companies, Bell Canada, and was assured that there would be a reply, will the parliamentary secretary make sure that there will be a reply in the House with respect to all of these companies?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the parliamentary secretary give that assurance?


Mr. Speaker:: I presumed that that was a representation to the hon. parliamentary secretary which ought to be noted.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ACT
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The Regional Development Incentives Act expired in 1975 in both British Columbia and Alberta. The food processing nutritive agreement has emerged in Alberta as a substitute for the RDIA, but as yet nothing has been negotiated in B.C. for a replacement. What initiative has the minister taken to arrive at an agreement with British Columbia for replacing the Regional Development Incentives Act?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, there is no negotiation to replace the Regional Development Incentives Act because this act remains in effect and it does not now apply to the province of British Columbia because there is no area designated as such under the act in this province. What we have in the province of Alberta to replace the act is an auxiliary agreement under the general development agreement which enables both governments to share costs. We are negotiating cost-sharing agreements with the government of British Columbia as a contribution to the infrastructure which is necessary for the establishment of new businesses in some areas of British Columbia. I am also considering the possibility of extending the scope of RDIA to businesses in other areas in Canada which are not covered by the act at the present time. This decision is not yet definite. We shall report to the House when we make a decision on this one way or another.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Howard Earl Johnston: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In connection with the negotiations with British Columbia in regard to regional and economic expansion to which the minister referred and because of the difficulties as a result of no precise section of the province being designated and therefore programs such as the one we have been discussing failing to have any effect in British Columbia, what response would the minister have to the suggestion that the agreement with British Columbia coincide or be related rather closely to the agreement with Quebec, to the effect that a large part of or almost the entire province would be designated, giving the province greater flexibility in selecting areas where regional development and economic expansion grants would be available in the province?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, during these negotiations, we said we were interested in designating some areas of this province for the implementation of our industrial assistance legislation. Without being opposed to it, the government of British Columbia would rather have us use another method, but doing this does not necessarily mean that we-for it would be our decision-would not extend the implementation of this legislation to other regions of British Columbia. However, there again I would rather wait until we have completed the current negotiations and come to an agreement before taking any other step. Should the pending agreement meet most of the goals both governments have in view, maybe no further action
May 16, 1977

will be necessary. If not, we will have to look further into this matter.

[English ]


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that we have just finished an omnibus bill covering five phases of the Criminal Code, in light of the fact that car theft is on the increase and because of the large increase set out by Statistics Canada and the Attorneys General of the various provinces, car insurance is very expensive, would the minister now consider setting a minimum sentence under the Criminal Code of one or two years for car theft? At the present time many courts are suspending sentence or treating this offence very lightly.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the hon. member's representations into account. I would advise him that to my knowledge I have not received any representation from the provincial Attorneys General with regard either to their amending the substance or the penalties associated with car theft. I will be meeting with them in June and will raise the subject with them. In connection with the hon. member's representation, I would point out to him that in a speech in the House about a year ago the hon. member took me to some considerable task for suggesting a minimum mandatory sentence be used as a remedy in the law as seldom as possible.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Justice would refer to Hansard he would see that I asked for a minimum sentence in the last omnibus bill. For the crime of cattle rustling there is a sentence of five or seven years but a suspended sentence for automobile theft. Surely, the Minister of Justice in his own right would consider the facts coming from Statistics Canada. I would suggest to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker, that he ask automobile manufacturers to change car window locks from the ordinary type that can be opened with a coat hanger to the tumble lock used by more sophisticated manufacturers.


MANPOWER
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am concerned about access to information filed with his department, particularly that affecting applicants for landed immigrant status, jobs and unemployment insurance. Does the department intend to require employers to notify Canada Manpower every time they hire someone in
Oral Questions
order that the government can use this computerized information to get the unemployment insurance cheaters, as stated, as well as illegal immigrants?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: No, Mr. Speaker. I have the same interest as the hon. member in protecting the confidentiality of our customers. By the same token, any representations we had in briefs from the CMA and the CLC were to the effect that something should be done in this particular area and the new hiring procedures to help in situations where, for example, there are honest over-payments which later have to be collected. There are a series of other administrative things that I think could be better taken care of if we-could get this program into effect. We hope to meet in the future with representatives of the CMA and the CLC to get their further views on this and probably implement something along this line in a pilot project just to see how it works.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. So there will be no mistake about the minister's attitude I would refer him to the weekend press and I am sure his departmental officials have briefed him in that regard. Does the minister deny the Canadian Press story carried in the weekend papers alleging that departmental officials acknowledged that information on manpower, unemployment insurance and immigration applicants could be used by other federal departments, including the RCMP or even outsiders such as collection agencies? I hope the minister will stand up and state that that is not the policy of his department.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would commend to the hon. member a very careful reading of section 114 of the Act which I think goes a long way to protect the individual. We would be looking to ways and manners in which that could even be enhanced.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, it is all right for the minister to refer me to a section of the Act but I wonder if he would give the House the assurance that the confidentiality of information given to his department by those who are seeking landed immigrant status or who are looking for jobs or are involved with unemployment insurance will be respected and the information will not be given to the RCMP or, in particular, to outside agents? I do not want to hear anything about any specifics in an Act. We would have to read that. I want information from the minister right now. Can he give us that assurance?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I would again commend to the hon. member the fact that this information has not been made available to outside agencies, the RCMP or others. That has been the policy and it will continue to be the policy.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That is all I want.

May 16, 1977
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE


REQUEST THAT ADMIRAL BOYLE APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: In the absence of the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence perhaps the vice-chairman of that committee, the hon. member for Algoma could reply. As Admiral Boyle will probably not be serving for much longer I wonder if the vice-chairman would invite him to appear as a witness at the committee meeting scheduled to be held tomorrow evening. The committee would no doubt benefit from hearing the opinions of the commander of Maritime Command on the ship replacement program, and other matters?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While in order initially, this question also became a representation.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. It has been reported that the Prime Ministers' meeting in London agreed to create a common fund to finance commodities. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if this fund would be used only for Third World countries or is it to be used for the purchase of reserve stocks of grain such as is proposed by the United States and Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the discussion was in the context of the north-south dialogue of the CIEC conference which will be meeting at the end of this month under the co-chairmanship of the President of the Privy Council. Therefore, both discussions turned on the fund which could be of assistance to Third World countries, particularly the less developed countries, those most in need. It is at this stage only a commitment in principle. My colleague, the President of the Privy Council, will be able to give the final answer to the hon. member's question when he returns from Paris.


ASSURANCE BY FRANCE OF NON-INTERVENTION IN INTERNAL AFFAIRS OF CANADA
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. In view of the assurances that the President of France is reported to have given to the Prime Minister in regard to non-interference in the internal affairs of Canada, can the Prime Minister tell the House if this assurance of non-intervention will likely hold even if other political parties or forces come to power in that country in the forthcoming elections?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is hypothetical, but is also incorrect in its assump-

tion. I think the hon. member has been misinformed. The President of France did not give me any such assurances. The government of France has, through ministers visiting in Canada and indeed through statements made as recently as two or three weeks ago in Paris through the mouth of its own foreign minister, given the assurance to which the hon. member refers. So, in that sense, 1 want to correct the question a little bit. Its intent is to speculate on what would happen if the government of France should change. Of course, I cannot reflect on that; I have no idea, and if I had, I would not want to speculate on it in public any more than I would want the President of France to speculate on the probability that the Tories will remain in opposition for many years to come.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, or question of privilege, relating to my exchange with the Minister of National Defence as reported at page 5601 of Hansard concerning the resignation or retirement of Admiral Boyle. I have checked Hansard and transcripts of various reports since last Friday and can arrive at no conclusion other than that the Minister of National Defence misled the House in his replies to my questions last Friday. I understand that points of this nature must be raised at the first possible opportunity, and this is my first opportunity. Unfortunately, the minister is absent from the House, and will be for several days.
My point in rising at this time is simply to serve the necessary notice that I intend to raise this matter as a question of privilege the next time the minister and I are both in the House.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the parliamentary secretary in his reply apparently did not know the difference between Prince Edward Island and Cape Breton Island, although many people throughout the world know where Cape Breton Island is-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Muir: -I shall pursue the question of decentralization further on the "late show".


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I know the difference between Cape Breton Island and Prince Edward Island. Mr. Speaker, my mother was from Cape Breton, and I think she would like to encourage the hon. member to represent it more adequately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh,.oh!
May 16, 1977



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of the joint declaration of the Downing Street Summit Conference, as well as the final communique of the North Atlantic Council meeting.


TRANSPORTATION
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies, in both official languages, of the Hall commission report dealing with certain branch lines in western Canada.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of State (Multicul-turalism)):: Mr. Speaker, beginning this week, Canadians of Japanese descent across Canada will be celebrating the one-hundredth anniversary of the arrival of the first Japanese immigrant to this country. The efforts of the Japanese Canadian community in contributing to the development of Canadian society, despite their experiences during World War II, are to be commended. They are truly a strength, both in the public and private sectors of our society, and Canada is a much richer society because they, despite their unfortunate experiences, have chosen to continue their contributions to Canada.
In recognition of the very special role played by this ethnocultural group in Canada's history and the significant contribution made by its members to Canadian multicultural society, I request all my colleagues to join with me in offering our warmest congratulations and best wishes to members of the Japanese Canadian community for a successful centennial year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, may I also extend to Japanese Canadians all across Canada our warmest congratulations on the one-hundredth anniversary of the arrival in Canada of the first Japanese immigrant. The progressiveness of the Japanese community in Canada and their most important contributions in the fields of
Order Paper Questions
commerce, industry, agriculture and the professions are well known. Theirs is a most enviable record, a record of which they can justly be proud. As well, their contribution of Japanese culture to our Canadian multicultural society has enriched, and will continue to enrich, our society immensely.
They have been a source of enrichment in our attempt to reach our ultimate goal, a distinct Canadian culture formed not only by input from our two founding races, the English and French, but input, also, from our native people and from the more than 70 ethnic groups in Canada whose combined numbers now make up one-third of our population. If we all work together in honesty and sincerity, we shall reach that goal and fulfil our aspirations more quickly. To that time we all look forward with much hope and anticipation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party I am happy to join in the words of congratulation being expressed today to the Canadians in our midst who are of Japanese origin. It is a significant occasion, the one-hundredth anniversary of the arrival in Canada of the first Japanese immigrant, and it is good that we should pause to think of the contribution this group has made to Canadian life at all levels.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and I were just saying to each other that the two of us were in this House in the early 1940s when this country did things to Canadians of Japanese origin of which we should still be ashamed. I am glad to note that some reconciliation has taken place and that some correction of the situation of the past is being attempted by the recognition we are now giving to that community. I am happy, on behalf of my party, to join in the words of congratulation which have been expressed today by the minister and by the hon. member who preceded me.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,877, 2,209, 2,222 and 2,341.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	(a) How many employees were hired to manage the Ocean Dumping Act (b) how many are on the payroll to date (c) where are they located?
2.	(a) How many employees are classified as Inspectors (b) where are they located (c) what is the number of ships inspected (i) per week (ii) per month in major Canadian seaports?
3.	(a) How many charges have been laid under the Ocean Dumping Act in each port in Canada (b) for what reason were the charges laid (c) what was the general nature of the complaints?

May 16, 1977
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) What was the total additional cost to the Department for salaries (b) what is the salary breakdown?


Mr. Jim Fleming (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: 1. (a) Since the Ocean Dumping Act and its regulations went into effect on December 13, 1975, two people have been hired and 19 have been diverted from other programs to manage the Act; (b) 21; (c) Ottawa/Hull 3.3; Maritimes 7.2; Pacific 7; Quebec 1; Northwest 2.5.
2.	(a) 174 employees of DFE, in addition to their regular functions, have been designated as inspectors under the Ocean Dumping Control Act. (b) British Columbia 99; Yukon 4; Prince Edward Island 1; Labrador 1; Newfoundland 21; Nova Scotia 13; New Brunswick 3; Northwest Territories 11; Manitoba 2; Quebec 19. (c) (i) approximately seven per week, (ii) approximately 30 per month.
3.	(a) None, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable.
4.	(a) $8,000 (two employees hired within the last four months), (b) $22,500 and $10,800 annual salaries.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Has it been necessary to develop faster and more effecient systems of communications to meet the needs of the decentralization of departments across the country and, if so (a) what are such systems (b) what has been the cost for the current fiscal year?
2.	What is the cost included by all departments in the 1977-78 Estimates and what is the etimated total additional cost arising from the needs of decentralization?


Mr. Ross Milne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned: 1. Because many improvements have been made to the government's intercity telecommunications network in recent, years to accommodate increased telecommunications traffic, including the extension of direct dialing services, improved transmission facilities and new teletype and data services, no special communication systems have been required to meet the decentralization needs of departments.
2.	No specific costs are identified in the 1977-78 Estimates since decentralization needs are provided by the existing intercity telecommunications system.
NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE-BRIDGE/CHIMNEY ISLAND


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development receive a written request dated November 17, 1975 from the hon. member for Leeds on behalf of a constituent, Mr. G. W. Mallory, Mallorytown, Ontario, owner of Bridge/Chimney Island?
2.	(a) Has Bridge/Chimney Island been declared a national historic site with the cairn and plaque to be erected nearby on the mainland (b) did Mr. Mallory request that some indication be made on the plaque that it was "private property" and, if so, did the Minister agree to forward such a request to the Historic Sites and Monuments Board?
3.	Did the Minister advise the hon. member for Leeds, in a letter dated March 22, 1977, that the Historic Sites and Monuments Board had refused to indicate
[Mr. Brisco.J
on the plaque the Bridge/Chimney Island is "private property" and, if so (a) will such decision be reviewed in order that the general public will not be encouraged to trespass on the private property unknowingly and to prevent great inconvenience to the owner?


Mr. B. Keith Penner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) Yes. (b) No. However, the hon. member for Leeds so stated in his letter of November 17, 1975. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development advised the hon. member that the request would be brought to the attention of the historian preparing the text.
3.	No. The Minister advised Mr. Cossitt that the board had not made any reference in the text to the fact that Bridge/ Chimney Island is privately owned, (a) No. However, the Minister in his letter of October 25, 1976 to Mr. Cossitt suggested that if Mr. Mallory has not already done so, he should post no trespassing signs on the Island to deter unwanted visitors.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	What was the cost of production of Treasury Board publication Federal Spending Plans: 1977-78, Special Edition, Volume I, No. 1?
2.	How many were produced and to whom were copies distributed?
3.	Is there a mailing list for this edition or future editions and, if so, how many persons or groups are on the list and what are their names?
4.	What was the cost of postage for the distribution of the publication?
5.	(a) How many such publications does the government plan to produce in the future (b) what is the proposed time frame (monthly, annually, etc.)?
6.	(a) What percentage of the material used in this edition was previously used in other government publications, releases or documents (b) how much is original material?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. $22,569.61.
2.	300,000. Distribution is continuing in response to requests. Initial distribution included all members of Parliament and the general public through the regional offices of the Departments of Manpower and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Canada Post Office (Grades 1 to 7), and the Public Service Commission. Individuals receive the publication when they enquire about the spending estimates. Teachers of high school students can also obtain the publication in classroom sets upon request.
3.	No.
4.	$4,610.01, as of May 4, 1977.
5.	(a) and (b): One per year at the time the Main Estimates are tabled.
6.	(a) Photographs supplied by other departments may have been used previously. Minister's statement and opposition reaction were in Hansard. Two charts were from Federal Expenditure Plan: How Your Tax Dollar is Spent. Press comments were taken from various papers, (b) Most of the text is original material based on the Main Estimates and related news releases.
May 16, 1977


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 612 and 1,395 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	(a) How many regional offices are maintained by the Department of the Solicitor General (b) where is each located (c) for what area is each responsible?
2.	On what date was each established and with how many personnel?
3.	What is the present personnel strength of each office?
4.	In addition to regional offices, are district or other sub-offices maintained and, if so (a) in what locations (b) how many?
5.	Are the duties performed by those manning the regional and/or district offices line functions, in the chain of command from Ottawa to the operator in the field, or do they have other functions to perform and, if so, what are such functions?
Return tabled.


Mr. Symes: 1.	What are the names of all the programmes under the Department of the Secretary of State which provide grants to citizens?
2. For the years 1975-76, how many applications were (a) received (b) approved for grants under the Human Rights and Group Understand Programme?
3.	For the same years, by constituency, what is a list of the applications (a) received (b) approved and the name of the applicant, in each case?
4.	For the same years, what was the (a) total amount (b) total amount by constituency of the approved applications under the Programme?
5.	For the same years, by constituency, which applications were (a) referred for approval to (b) rejected by the local Member of Parliament?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment) moved: that Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act
Fisheries
and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

He said: Mr. Speaker, as we start discussion on amendments to the Fisheries Act, Bill C-38, it is necessary to remember that the Fisheries Act is already powerful in the principles it sets forth. It protects the fish and man's use of fish. It states that no one may harm the waters of fish. This principle makes it our main legal arm in controlling water pollution within Canada. It also has great importance in controlling ocean pollution in ways I shall discuss. Although the principles of the existing act are good, it lacks the flexibility and the force to apply these principles fully. Social growth and change bring forth new threats, dangers hardly dreamed of by the drafters of the original act in 1868. They lived in days when the Atlantic salmon crowded the banks of eastern rivers. Since then, this famous fish has provided one of the best, or worst, examples of what a species can suffer from society.
In those major rivers of New Brunswick that still harbour Atlantic salmon, the fish that reach the spawning grounds yearly now number only in the low thousands. To reach the spawning grounds they must pass poachers who have used everything from pitchforks to dynamite. These vandals have assaulted my fisheries officers, have fired shots at them and have threatened to burn down their homes. When we catch a person poaching, the law does not provide sufficient punishment to deter him and others like him. What fines we can levy often amount to a minor tax; their criminal gains are far higher.
There were also other causes for the widespread loss of the great Atlantic salmon fishery, mainly growth-urban and industrial growth-with accompanying pollution, loss of fish habitants and other damage that the Fisheries Act and its application failed to prevent. The same effects of industrial growth phenomenon threaten other species in Canada, not the cute-looking seal, a thriving and increasing species in its deep waters, but homelier and truly endangered species in our rivers, such as the shortnose sturgeon which attracts no glamorous defenders.
A Fisheries Act strong enough for its purpose of protecting fish and man's use of fish has obvious side benefits. Although Canada has the longest coastline, and probably the most fresh water of any country, size has no necessary relation to health. Our water resists pollution no more than the water in Minima-ta. If our laws can protect the water, if we give the fish a place to live, we can have a better place for man to live. People should be able to see clean water, swim in it, maybe catch a fish. The changes we are suggesting will increase the government's power to protect the fish and their waters.
These changes reflect a stronger public attitude that anyone whose actions affect these resources must take full responsibility. In particular, those who wilfully despoil should face strong penalties. Perhaps the most vicious offenders are the poachers who make a career of robbing honest fishermen. The poacher is the opposite of Robin Hood: he robs what belongs to

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
everybody, a common property resource, to enrich himself, and sometimes he does so on a grand scale. He threatens the very existence of Atlantic salmon in some rivers, and unless something is done his activities could well threaten parts of the Atlantic lobster fishery. He takes lobsters that, if left alone, would eventually give legitimate lobster fishermen three million more a year.
On the west coast, the loss of potential earnings from the British Columbia salmon fishery through poaching is estimated at $3.5 million annually. One illegal set by a purse seine in British Columbia could bring in $20,000. The fine might be $200. We have many cases where the magistrate's failure to understand the significance of an offence meant that the poacher, even when convicted, made a net profit. I suggest that what is a dangerous game for the fish should become more dangerous for the poacher. The testimony of my officials of legitimate fishermen who suffer from poachers and of the dollar losses I have noted, show that our system has been inadequate. We need more deterrence. Beside raising fines of $5,000 maximum we should increase the threat of forfeiture.
At present, the Minister of Fisheries can take away the licence of a commercial fisherman upon conviction for illegal fishing. The minister lacks other powers of forfeiture. The courts may apply forfeiture against anyone, licensed or unlicensed. They can take away the offender's catch, boat, gear, or vehicle used in illegal fishing. Many of the courts, however, have a history of failing to do so, even in cases involving serious infractions of the law. I am asking that, in future, convictions by a court should carry with it the possibility that the Minister of Fisheries himself may order forfeiture of anything from a salmon poacher's net to a foreign factory trawler. I think the testimony of my officials in committee hearings will convince hon. members of the need for this strong deterrent.
In addition, I ask that fisheries officers, who must frequently deal with armed and violent poachers, receive the additional powers of peace officers.
Our suggested amendments provide also for a ticketing system, like that for traffic offences. At present, even minor infractions of the Fisheries Act make necessary a magistrate's hearing, and these take an unwarranted amount of time from the courts, the fisheries officers, and the offenders themselves.
But, Mr. Speaker, as the case of Atlantic salmon shows so well, the regulation of fishing itself is only part of what we need. Protecting fish means protecting their habitats. Protecting the aquatic habitat involves controlling the use of wetlands. The banks of streams, the foreshores of estuaries, provide nutrients to the larger eco-system of lakes and oceans in amounts far out of proportion to their size. The chain of life extending to the whole open ocean depends on bogs, marshes, mudflats, and other "useless-looking" places that ruin your shoes. Biologists have likened these areas to the cornfields and wheatfields of the ocean. These rich shore areas support salmon, lobster, herring and other local populations; their
[Mr. LeBlanc (Westmoriand-Kent).l
influence extends for hundreds of miles, even to the most rocky shorelines. They are the irreplaceable nurseries of fisheries well-being.
Today, if someone with a bulldozer starts plowing up the foreshore, the law gives us no direct recourse. An afternoon's bulldozing can destroy the work of centuries. Salmon are considered the crown jewels of British Columbia. Yet on the world's most important salmon river, the Fraser, development has already destroyed 70 per cent of the estuary for supporting the foundation of fish life. Public opinion and the government in B.C. strongly support our salmon enhancement project, which can double the numbers of salmon and restore them to their historic abundance. Volunteers are already at work clearing streams and restoring habitats. But we would be wise to provide a'law that can prevent unchecked developments on the shore from undermining their efforts.
The suggested changes to the act would broaden the definition of fish, and thereby extend protection to eggs, spawn, and the juvenile stages. The changes would make it clear that aquatic habitat includes everything necessary to the life of the fish, and we would provide severe penalties for destroying this habitat: up to $5,000 on summary conviction, and up to two years imprisonment on indictment. The .main effect of the changes would be this: for landfill, dredging, excavation, or other such projects in these sensitive areas, we would be able to examine the plans first, and to require modification or, if necessary, prohibition. Instead of accusing someone, after the fact, of destroying fish habitats, we would be part of the planning to save them.
There is ample precedent for such legislation. The Navigable Waters Protection Act controls construction projects and land use that would interfere with navigation. Under provisions of the existing Fisheries Act, we work with logging operators to plan their activities so as to protect the fish. We can bring about similar working arrangements with land developers. It is vital that the suggested amendments to the law should give us the power to do so.
Habitat protection will always remain a difficult battle because it runs against the energies of good people following their natural bent: developers, loggers, land reclaimers, and so on. The work of constant monitoring and restraint where necessary is hard, but the alternative prospect of forever losing stocks or species of fish is not acceptable.

Mr. Speaker, I speak a lot about habitat protection because it must be recalled that the welfare of fish population is closely linked to what is taking place on shore. As regards water, its importance is obvious. Unfortunately, after years of efforts to make people aware of water pollution, despite clean up campaigns by the federal and provincial government, our waters remain very polluted and this arises partly from weaknesses in our legislation.
The amendments we are proposing will provide us with two means to fight pollution. The first is based on a very simple principle-he who causes harm must correct it. The effect of the changes we are proposing as regards deposits of deleterious
May 16, 1977

substances would be as follows: First of all, anybody responsible for depositing materials that are detrimental to fish, such as hydrocarbons, chemicals or any other deleterious substances, must report it as prescribed in regulations made pursuant to the legislation.
Second, the offenders, those responsible for the deposits, who own the deposited products or who were carrying them must, and I quote:
counteract, mitigate or remedy any adverse effects.
In other words, they must try to correct the harm they have done, that is to clean up waters by removing deposited substances.
The inspectors designated by the department will have more powers in terms of directing the cleaning work. Finally, offenders will be liable to higher fines, which might be as high as $100,000 in some cases. There will also be a change of attitude to deal with those who are likely to deposit such substances. Things are much easier whenever preventive rather than remedial action can be taken in this regard.
This statement on prevention from source of deposit leads to an area in which our legislation is obviously very complex. Depositing sources are numerous in rivers and coastal waters, but there is only one in high seas: ships.
So the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act concerning the prevention of pollution are very important. They are aimed at preventing the pollution of all elements of the environment by one polluter-ships. On the other hand, those provisions of the Fisheries Act are aimed at preventing the pollution of one element of the environment-fish-by all polluting agents.
As far as ocean dumping is concerned, the Canada Shipping Act is complemented by the Fisheries Act and the Ocean Dumping Control Act. The latter has to do with the dumping of garbage into the sea from an international point of view.
Departmental officials are working in close cooperation with officials of the Department of Transport to prevent high sea pollution hazards. For example, our two departments set up a system of public hearings on the potential hazards that could stem from the proposed oil tanker routes and the oil tanker terminal at Kitimat, British Columbia.
[English)
When we think of offshore pollution, we think of the Torrey Canyon, the Argo Merchant, the Arrow, all the spectacular tanker disasters. And we do well to be wary about ship-caused pollution. One spill can destroy a long coast in a matter of hours. In guarding the health of the ocean, however, we should remember that more than 80 per cent of the pollution in the ocean-oil, chemicals, garbage, all the rest-gets there directly from the land, via rivers, seaports and the air. And most of this land-based pollution comes less from spills than from built-in sources: municipalities, factories, pulp mills and the like, that pour effluent into our waters day in and day out. Our second set of amendments to the pollution control provisions of the Fisheries Act takes aim at these built-in and most dangerous sources of pollution.
Fisheries
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.
I am completely agreeable to that suggestion and have so informed the concerned ministers. I am anxious, however, that this important legislation receive reasonable and prompt consideration here in the House so it can be studied in more detail and any possible problems cleared up at committee stage. I 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.
All components of the environment interact with each other, and therefore it is essential that all government agencies, federal, provincial and municipal, work together to get the job done. This sort of teamwork is particularly important in dealing with the vast quantities of sewage often containing industrial waste waters discharged daily by cities and towns into our lakes, rivers and oceans. Although the focus of this government's activities in municipal effluent in the past has been through the provision of CMHC loans and grants to speed the construction of municipal sewerage projects, we may have to be more relentless than we have been in ensuring that fish are protected from these dangers.
Our suggested amendments for prevention of industrial pollution mainly concern older industrial plants. In 1970, parliament changed the Fisheries Act to enable us to prevent pollution at new plants, those to be built, altered or expanded, but we left the government's authority over the other existing plants pretty much as it had been, even though these older plants were the major source of industrial pollution. The Fisheries Act already included the general statements prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances. We thought that this, plus the specific changes 1 have mentioned, would give enough authority to clean up our rivers and lakes.
Although we have made headway in the clean-up, it has been less successful than we had hoped. Our care for fish and the environment is still not good enough. Part of the reason is the unwieldly nature of the Fisheries Act as it applies to existing plants, the prime source of noxious waste. The power we have now to regulate pollution from existing plants is of an all or nothing nature. We can prohibit the deposit of deleterious substances above specified quantities from any source.

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
That means that we could ask a court to order a plant that pollutes to close down.
The threat of closure, however, works both ways: A company can say, "Look, pollution control equipment is expensive: We can't afford to clean this place up completely. If you keep pestering us, we'll close down the mill and the closure could destroy this community". In that way, a company owner may refuse almost entirely to co-operate. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, officials may have talked to a plant owner about cleaning up his operation and he is proceeding with reasonable speed. We believe in his good faith. A citizen's group, however, is taking, or can take, him to court under the general provision prohibiting the deposit of deleterious substances, and could bring about the immediate shutdown of a big employer who is doing his best to clean up his operation.
Most cases, obviously, fall between such extremes. Nevertheless, the unwieldy nature of the act at present has handicapped our anti-pollution work. We are unable to make the regulations fit the circumstances as they should. The act contains no specific authority to make regulations for specific types of existing plants on an industry by industry basis. The environmental protection agency of the United States, on the other hand, has such authority. We need it, too: it is a practical way to solve pollution problems.
The amendments we ask would give us more flexibility in our approach to polluters. We need authority to demand specific improvements in specific situations, for individual industries and individual plants. We need authority to let a plant owner keep depositing pollutants in regulated amounts provided he is working toward a cleaner operation. We need bigger fines, up to $100,000 for wilful polluters who refuse to co-operate with clean-up regulations. The new powers, if this House approves them, will let us push the plants along at a reasonable and realistic rate in the clean-up of their operations without driving them out of business.
Many of these industrial plants discharging noxious wastes are old. Companies built them when we thought nature could dispose of whatever we threw at it. Now we know better. What we put into the water can change it. We can destroy the natural environment. Our dependence on nature has become a dependence on our governance of nature.
As in most issues, the course of reason is the middle way. We find extremists on both sides of these issues. We also find moderates; and the moderates usually represent what turns out to be the common interest and, more frequently, common sense. Some extremists would close down any industry which emits an effluent regardless of the environmental needs, regardless of what pollution control technology may have done to reduce the threat. They turn a blind eye to economic or social consequences. Fortunately, most environmentalists are not unreasonable. They want, quite simply, a cleaner and healthier environment. They do not want our life support systems sacrificed for temporary industrial gain.
There are extremists on the industrial side, too-people who refuse to accept the environmental realities, people who see every move to forestall degradation as a pretext by government

to control them out of existence. But here, too, we are talking about a minority. The majority of industry's representatives that I have met see the need for changes; they recognize that new problems call for new solutions, that what the public asks of them is not only reasonable and necessary but is economically and technologically possible. To sum it up, the reasonable approach is one that recognizes that the quality of the human environment has economic and ecological elements. The answer lies in balance.
I want to go on record now as saying that I will continue to listen to the voices of reason, but that I have little time for extremists from either side. I will strive, through these amendments, to see the provisions of the Fisheries Act consistently applied, and I am confident that these very necessary amendments will be applied in the spirit of reasonableness which has characterized Canadian environmental progress over the past decade or so. Growth must respect the environment. In the past, where society has grown, fish have tended to die. If we can save them a place to live, the changes are better for us. We have made of progress a god. But mercury was named for the messenger of the gods, and mercury has warned us clearly that the gods of progress have a darker side.
I am sure all hon. members here believe in some growth and change, but we all draw the line about someone changing, without our consent, the water or other elements that support the life of the fish or of ourselves. The fish and their waters are a public resource. With the changes to the Fisheries Act that I am asking for, my department will be better able to carry out the public responsibility of guarding them. I commend, Mr. Speaker, these amendments to the House. I hope hon. members will support them, and, where committee discussions so warrant, that together we can improve even more Bill C-38.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this measure. This bill deals with pollution, power problems, penalties, poachers, police officers, protection, politics and prohibition.
I want to thank the minister for his statement. I listened to him with interest. I want to welcome him back to the House from his visit to Cuba, even though he was there such a brief period that he does not come back to us with a typical Cuban suntan or even his pockets bulging with cigars. Hopefully, at an early date the minister will find time either to give the House or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry an outline of what he discussed in Cuba or an outline of what the Cuban government plan to do in its fishing operations off the Atlantic coast of Canada.
Bill C-38 is indicative of the Liberal government's fishery policy-laced with good intentions but brought in too late. Is it any wonder that back home fishermen look at me with a twinkle in their eyes and call the minister the Rip Van Winkle of the fishing industry?
There is absolutely no excuse for this bill, which was introduced on February 21, 1977, to have been delayed until now for second reading. The fishermen, the Progressive Con-
May 16, 1977

servative party, and even the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), have been pleading for stronger enforcement measures in fisheries for the past several years. Bill C-38 provides for those measures. They are measures which should have been brought forward much earlier.
We on this side of the House in the official opposition support Bill C-38 in principle because the present Fisheries Act needs immediate revision. The bill provides a number of improvements such as the establishment of more realistic penalties for those contravening the act, the production of a ticketing system for minor infractions so that fishery officers will no longer be tied up for ages in court proceedings, and the extension of anti-pollution controls to existing industries.
However, we are concerned with several aspects of this bill: the extensive search and seizure powers of fisheries officers; the extensive search powers of the federal pollution inspectors; the possible federal-provincial constitutional clash over antipollution jurisdiction; the small number of fisheries officers and inspectors with which the department expects to do the job; and the content of the regulations which the governor in council may prescribe in the future.
Under section 35 of the Fisheries Act, any fisheries officer can break open and search any house, vessel or place where he has reason to believe that fish taken in violation of the act are concealed. No search warrant is needed, although a departmental directive was issued which prohibited entry into a personal dwelling unless "hot pursuit" was involved. I wonder what they mean by "hot pursuit". In the television serial "M.A.S.H." we learned the reason for calling one of the actresses "Hot Lips Houlihan". I wonder what the minister means by "hot pursuit". Perhaps someone on his side will explain.
We question whether a departmental directive is sufficient or appropriate to prevent the abuse of such extensive powers. Clause 9 of the bill grants federal pollution inspectors the right to enter any place, except a private dwelling, where he presumably believes the act is being contravened. Why should these inspectors and fisheries officers be granted powers greater than those of peace officers, especially since fisheries officers have been designated as peace officers? Once again, the government seems to be encroaching unduly upon the privacy and upon the rights of an individual.
We must ask ourselves, what is a peace officer? The Criminal Code states that a peace officer includes a mayor, warden, reeve, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriffs officers and justices of the peace. The term also covers wardens, deputy wardens, instructors, keepers, jailers, guards and any other officers or permanent employees of a prison. It includes police officers, police constables, bailiffs, constables or other persons employed for the preservation and maintenance of public peace or for the service or execution of civil process.
It includes customs or excise officers, pilots in command of aircraft, and officers and men of the Canadian forces who are appointed for special duties under the National Defence Act. Now fisheries officers are to be added to this list. I fear we are getting somewhat close to a police state. I believe our fisher-
Fisheries
men should be listened to when they say, without tongue in cheek, that we have a little too much control. As I said a moment ago, in the course of carrying out his duties, a fisheries officer may conduct a search without the authority of a warrant. The only limitation on his power is the necessity for him to have reason to believe there has been contravention of the act.
Let us for a moment contrast this power with the position of a peace officer within the provisions of the Criminal Code. In such a situation, a police officer must present information to a justice of the peace, showing reasonable grounds for believing that in a specified location there is something which has relevance to the commission of an offence against the provisions of the Criminal Code. The justice of the peace, in his discretion, if he feels requirements have been met, may issue a search warrant authorizing the police officer to carry out a search.
The important point I wish to make, and one I want the House to note, is that the peace officer's honest belief as to the particulars detailed is insufficient. It must be the justice of the peace, and not the peace officer, who is to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing the matters to be established before the issuance of a warrant. Moreover, it was held that search warrants cannot be used to carry out general searches. There is need for describing in detail the items to be searched for and seized. In other words, the issuance of a search warrant is not a mere administrative act, but a judicial act of the justice of the peace. Under the Customs Act, for example, a customs officer may, upon reasonable grounds of suspicion and without authority of warrant, search any package or board or enter any vehicle or vessel. However, if he wishes to search any building or place, he must obtain such authority from a justice of the peace.
Why is there not a similar provision required of fisheries officers classed as peace officers? An exception to the rule is that any such act may be carried out by a customs officer without a warrant when there is no justice of the peace within five miles. That is a restriction which, I submit, should be the last one written into this bill. I hope the minister gives consideration to this point.
Unfortunately, this bill does nothing for some of the major problems facing our fishing industry. It does nothing to alleviate the fear among our fishermen as generated by the present management policies established by Ottawa bureaucrats, that we will have to wait at least five years before getting any real benefits from the 200-mile limit. This situation is due to Ottawa's generosity when negotiating bilateral agreements with foreign nations fishing within our economic zone. We have, in effect, given away the keys to our banks in order to obtain tacit agreements. As a result of these bilateral agreements, our resources continue to be raped, pillaged and plundered, while our own fish catches decline and the size of fish caught by our people becomes smaller and smaller.
If anyone doubts that statement, all he needs do is to read the government's own reports as put forth by the Canadian Salt Fish Corporation. The fish caught in 1976 were so small

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
that the corporation's markets were affected-and the report for 1977 will be even worse. This indicates that overfishing is still going on, depleting our resources below the sustainable yield level and depleting them, as well, below the age level when they spawn and reproduce the species.
This government's whole management approach has been based on guesstimates not supported by adequate research data. The blame for the decline in our inshore and offshore catches must be laid squarely on the shoulders of the Liberal government and its "wait and see" fisheries policies during the past ten years. I realize the present minister did not hold that position during the past ten years, but he and his predecessors must share some of the blame for the problems our fishermen now face. Right at this moment this government is making crucial decisions on quotas for Canadian inshore and offshore fishing. These are quotas for 1978 and are quotas for our own people which will be established on what 1 submit is outdated information.
For example, at the Fisheries Council of Canada meetings which I attended last Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday- May 9, 10 and 11-among other things I learned that quotas for Canadian inshore and offshore fleets and the foreign fleets operating within our 200-mile economic zone for 1978 will be set around the middle of June. This information was reinforced by officials appearing on Thursday, May 12, before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
However, 1 submit that by following this course we will have no way of knowing the total possible catch of the large inshore fleet, for example, which operates off the northeast coast of Newfoundland and which concludes its major fishing effort in early September. In fact, we will not even have the opportunity to gauge the catching capabilities of the Canadian offshore fleet. The danger inherent in this type of management program is that officials in Ottawa will be setting total allowable catches-or TAC's, as they are called-for 1978 without really knowing the catching capability of the Canadian fleet. We will be declaring stocks of fish as surplus to our needs and making them available to foreign fleets without basic, practical or scientific data on which to base our figures.
This problem was covered by some of the resolutions put forward by members of the industry in attendance at the Fisheries Council convention, and in order to help the government-which obviously has not given fisheries research the priority it requires-the industry has suggested that it would be practical for the government to have much of its stock assessment and research done from Canadian commercial fishing vessels. This is a viewpoint I have put forward in previous debates on this matter, and in view of the obvious need for greater research before an adequate fisheries management plan is established, I hope the government gives this proposal favourable consideration in the immediate future.
The Fisheries Council made this recommendation. It is in resolution No. 5 in its list of resolutions. It is a sound recommendation, and I commend it to the minister's attention. I
(Mr. Crouse.]
believe that we, as Canadians, must follow this course, because in my opinion it is simply not enough just to know the standing stocks. We have to know what kinds of changes in abundance and distribution to expect as a result of natural environmental factors. I ask the minister, for example, how many fish and fishing stocks were destroyed as a result of recent oil spills? The minister himself mentioned his concern about the Torrey Canyon and the Arrow. These spills may have taken place in parts of the globe which are far removed from Atlantic Canada, but our shores off the coast of Atlantic Canada are swept by the Gulfstream, albeit far out to sea. Closer into shore we have the Labrador current coming down past Newfoundland and the coast of Nova Scotia, and wherever these spills occur it is quite possible for the oil to be carried, either on the surface or in the deeps, over great distances and to have a great effect on our fisheries stocks.
We have to know what kinds of changes to expect as a result of these environmental factors. We have to know the interdependence between stocks. We have to know the distribution of stocks at any given time, both horizontally and vertically. We have to know where the various species spawn, and when. Using the ships of the industry, I submit, will go a long way toward providing this data which is fundamental to establishing a sound fisheries management program. I submit that if this course is followed, it is just possible-I do not say it would happen, but I submit it is possible-that we will learn what is happening to Atlantic Canada's salmon industry.
In his remarks the minister stated that at one time in his native province of New Brunswick the salmon crowded the banks of the rivers. I can well remember when salmon fishing in my native province of Nova Scotia and, in fact, in my own county of Lunenburg, was a very good industry. We caught many salmon in the La Have River, for example, and in the Medway, whereas today it is almost cause for announcing a national holiday if salmon is caught in any of these rivers. The stocks have become badly depleted. It is just possible that if an adequate research program were established by the minister, we could find out what is happening to our salmon industry. This is one species which seems to have been totally neglected in recent years, and in my opinion there is an immediate need to establish adequate protection for salmon originating in Atlantic Canada's coastal waters. In fact, I submit that we need a salmon enhancement program in Atlantic Canada immediately, a program which would, hopefully, restore depleted stocks and would bring improved earnings to inshore fishermen in our coastal areas. This is something we tend to ignore from time to time when discussing over-all fishing problems, but I would like to emphasize the problem this afternoon.
I hope the minister will recognize that this problem should be of immediate concern and that action should be taken. After all, if we started today on a program to re-establish Atlantic salmon, the minister and I are well aware that the effects of that program would not be felt for at least seven or eight years. So it is necessary to get moving as soon as possible.
May 16, 1977

There are a host of other questions and problems facing the industry. I am not going to deal with them in detail. One problem is higher oil prices. Those prices will increase the cost per pound of fish landings, making Hamilton Bank fishing very expensive. The minister suggests that this is one area which is still open to Atlantic fishermen and that there are still surplus stocks to be caught. But I wonder how the fishing industry in total will offset this increased cost.
Why was the quota on squid and capelin-the food fish for cod fish-increased this year, when under the management program every effort should be made to rebuild ground fish stocks? After all, capelin and squid are the food fish for codfish and other ground fish species, the stocks of which we are trying to rebuild. To give away to foreign countries capelin and squid in vast quantities, the food fish for other fish, seems to me to be a regressive step which should not be continued in 1978.
Under their 200-mile limit, the Americans are catching more fish. Therefore, they will be supplying their own market which is, in effect, our market. I wonder what steps the minister is considering to assist in long-term marketing. I realize this is not an immediate problem because the catch of fish is down at the moment and the industry itself is not having any difficulty marketing its catch, but I submit we should not wait until a crisis arises before we take steps to meet it. It would be a good idea to do some forward-planning, and I wonder if the minister will give us an indication of what his forward plans are in this area. I would like to know if it is possible to establish a herring industry in Atlantic Canada. There is an industry on the west coast which has become very profitable, and we certainly welcome the news when any segment of the industry is doing well, but I wonder whether the minister is taking any steps to investigate the possibilities in Atlantic Canada.
I wonder if it is possible to establish a porbeagle shark fishery in Atlantic Canada, rather than leaving this industry entirely to the Faroe Islanders. It was interesting to talk to the representative who came from the Faroe Islands to the Fisheries Council of Canada meeting. He informed me that the large porbeagle shark is caught there, and many of these fish are caught off our coast, as the minister is well aware. These fish are marketed in Europe, even though they contain 7 per cent of mercury and more. Apparently in some Scandinavian countries there is no concern whatever about the possible danger to the health of humans as a result of the mercury content in these large fish. I submit that this is an area in which the minister and his officials have been somewhat negligent. They have neglected somewhat those who would like to pursue this type of deep sea fishery. It is not unrelated to the swordfish industry which has been inoperative since 1970, at least in Atlantic Canada, even though it has been re-established in the United States.
These are points that I hope the minister will examine. They deal with just a few of the problems. If I used all the notes I
Fisheries
have before me this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, there would be no time for other speakers. I hope the points I have raised will be examined very carefully by the minister and that some action will be taken on them to benefit our fishermen.
On this side of the House we are also concerned about the possibility of a federal-provincial confrontation over pollution. At the present time the federal government has control over any pollution which affects fish in their aquatic habitat, while provincial governments have control over any pollution which affects their waters in general. In my view, the federal and provincial governments should come to a firmer understanding and commitment on what each controls, and the powers that each can exercise. Otherwise, there is a tendency to confrontation, which I submit can only place further burdens on our presently strained national unity and on our already overstrained Canadian confederation.
It seems to me, when I look at some of these proposals, almost as though they are part of a deliberate plan to break up Canada, a deliberate plan to confront the provinces with policies and powers that should be vested in the provinces. I submit that federal-provincial co-operation is essential, because a province can delay the implementation of any federal anti-pollution regulation. In the case of controversial pollution issues, the provinces could claim that the federal government has responsibility, whereas the federal government could claim the opposite. Without a previous understanding, nothing would be done except pass the buck. Furthermore, what might happen is that an industry located in an economically depressed region of Canada-heaven knows, the minister is well aware of some of these regions-might refuse to comply with the federal anti-pollution standards. If the province came to the defence of the industry, would the Supreme Court uphold as constitutional the federal government's claim over water pollution?
Although these are hypothetical examples, they are real possibilities if federal-provincial jurisdiction over pollution is not clearly delineated. It is because of factors such as I have outlined that the government not only faces unrest in one province-namely, Quebec-but similar unrest in Atlantic Canada, central Canada, Ontario and the western provinces. I raise this not to be critical but in the hope that the minister and his colleagues will carefully examine these matters when drawing up bills.
Clause 11 of the bill authorizes the government to establish licence fees for the harvesting of marine plants. Do we really need more fees in the fishery, Mr. Speaker? I do not think so, especially since the government in this case should be encouraging aquaculture, not discouraging it will licences and fees.
I note that Clause 4 of the bill requires that fish guards, or screens, must be placed on any water intake, ditch, channel or canal in Canada where the minister deems it necessary in the public interest. The present Fisheries Act only extends this provision to the western provinces, but now the owner of the water intake, ditch, channel or canal is to be responsible for the upkeep and repair of fish guards. I should like the minister

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
to tell us how he will determine where fish guards should be placed, and if there will be a regular inspection of them by the department. If there is to be no regular inspection, I submit that this clause is meaningless.
Clause 5 of the bill states that no person shall destroy fish by any means other than fishing. It also defines "aquatic habitat" and states that no one can disrupt or destroy it without the minister's consent. This raises the question of the man who wants to carry out dredging operations. Will he need the minister's consent before starting work? If fish are destroyed through dredging, is the dredge operator liable, since he destroyed fish by means other than fishing? Does the department intend to apply clause 5 to every body of water in Canada, or are there only certain bodies of water which the department does not want disrupted? If the latter assumption is true, is the minister going to table a list of those bodies of water to which he gives priority?
Finally, Mr. Speaker, several clauses in the bill allow the government to prescribe various regulations in the future. The Progressive Conservative party has constantly argued that the Canadian people, through parliament, should know what the regulations are under any bill before granting blanket approval to them. A government can bypass parliament very easily in making future changes to an act if it has already been granted the power to establish regulations, because regulations do not need parliamentary approval. More consultation, for example, was recommended by the Fisheries Council of Canada in their resolution No. 8. It is interesting that they should bring forward this matter. Following four "whereas's", resolution No. 8 states:
Therefore be it resolved
that Canada, in consultation with all segments of the industry, formulate its long-range fisheries goals for all marine stocks off its coasts and adopt well-defined principles upon which management plans and regulations can be based.
All through these resolutions you can detect a fear that changes are being made by bureaucrats, that bills are being formulated, that acts are being implemented without adequate consultation with the industry. They are literally begging for the right to be consulted by the minister and his officials before acts are implemented which may be harmful, over-all, to the fishing industry.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we in this party endorse the principle of Bill C-38, although we have reservations about certain aspects of it. We wonder why the bill could not have been brought forward earlier. However, when we look at this government's track record in fisheries policies, its delays in declaring a 200-mile limit, its delays in completing second reading of Bill C-7, the only other fisheries bill on the order paper, which has been there since December 10, 1976-the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) says we are obstructing parliament by not allowing bills to go through, but that one has been on the order paper since December 10, 1976-and see this lack of interest in our fisheries problems, it is indicative of the low priority the government has given the fishing industry, and its problems, for a long time.

We look at all these things, and the government's delay in reaching agreement with the United States over Georges Bank, for example, and the delay in reaching agreement with France over fishing boundaries, and we realize that the United States, after 16 years of not recognizing Cuba, was able to reach agreement with them on the 200-mile limit in a matter of three weeks. Cuba is only about 90 miles away from the United States, and when it declared a 200-mile limit and the United States declared a 200-mile limit, there was, naturally, an overlapping of boundaries which had to be settled. This was achieved within two or three weeks, although the United States had not recognized Cuba for some 16 years.
We in Canada are friendly with the United States-certainly we in the Progressive Conservative party are, and we hope the government has a friendly attitude toward our great neighbour to the south-but no agreement has been reached on what could be the most valuable fishing bank off the coast of Atlantic Canada, namely, Georges Bank. It is a prolific bank, yielding many millions of dollars worth of scallop landings in my constituency, Lunenburg, Shelburne and Liverpool, and in Yarmouth, in the constituency of the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell).
Mr. Speaker, this matter is important to us. I wish, to high heaven, it was equally important to the government. There is nothing I would welcome more than an announcement by the minister, that agreement had been reached on the ownership of Georges Bank, or on how the resources of that bank are to be shared. If it is not possible for the Canadian and United States governments to come to an agreement, perhaps the minister should consider asking a third party to negotiate on his behalf. In any event, I submit that two friendly nations, Canada and the United States, can surely resolve this matter to the benefit of both. But these difficulties remain unresolved.
In conclusion, one can only say that if there is not an adequate solution it would appear that the Liberal government wants to maintain its almost perfect record of national procrastination.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take much of the time of the House, since this bill can be discussed more thoroughly in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. Let me say that I support the minister wholeheartedly in his desire to deal not only with the pollution of our inland waters but with the pollution of our coastal waters.
Pollution damages our fishing industry, on which many of our people depend for food, and from which thousands of Canadian citizens earn their livelihood. As the minister said, a good deal of thought and drama surrounds the problem of an oil spill at sea, and rightly so. Certainly, the NDP is concerned about the possibility of an oil pipeline being built from Kitimat to Edmonton. We are concerned because there is a dangerous, 60-mile channel leading to Kitimat which, according to my information, has not been surveyed for over 30 years. Originally it was charted for vessels drawing up to 35 feet; but that
May 16, 1977

channel may have to accommodate oil tankers drawing over 80 feet. Therefore, we are concerned about oil spills, about ships being wrecked close to the coast, ruining our fishing areas and polluting our shores. I submit there is cause for real concern in this regard.
The minister said that although we are concerned about oil spills on the high seas and in our inland waters, we must realize that a major part of our pollution occurs on the landward side, from industry. For instance, on the west coast of British Columbia mining industries are dumping their highly toxic tailings into coastal waters. All kinds of materials from various plants and mills are being dumped into our waters. They are noxious to fish life. Also, some fairly large communities are still dumping raw sewage into our coastal waters.
It is interesting to note that many of those who are most forthright in criticizing industries which dump their tailings into the sea are also the same people who complain to high heaven when one suggests that municipalities should spend money on sewage treatment plants. The fact is that both kinds of pollution are equally destructive of our waters. I used the example of the Pacific coast, but I know that the same conditions apply on the Atlantic coast. In my part of the country some communities are still dumping raw sewage into our waters. 1 suggest we must deal with that kind of complacency. This legislation attempts to correct the general lack of concern of many municipalities, a lack of concern shown by the dangerous industrial trend in pollution which is killing off our fisheries.
Man is the most destructive creature ever to have ruled the earth. Other species kill for food, but man often kills for the sheer love of killing. He is thoughtless and careless about the effects of his industrial development, what it is doing to his own environment, and the possibilities of survival of future generations. We shall support wholeheartedly and enthusiastically the minister's attempts to correct the situation. But the government has been lax in coming to grips with the problem.
Three or four years ago the minister's predecessor, the Hon. Jack Davis, brought in, with much fanfare, legislation labelled as the clean air and pure water bill. It was hailed by the press and the electronics media, and fine speeches were made in this House. I agreed with almost every word the then minister said. Noble sentiments were expressed. Yet in my party we felt that it was more an exercise in public relations than in effective legislation. We said we supported the purposes and thrust of the bill, but were not convinced it had sufficient teeth to guarantee the people of Canada the kind of clean air or pure water the bill promised.
There was talk of the government's setting up pollution control districts. The idea was good. It would bring together federal, provincial and municipal governments which, with representatives of industry, would seek out the root causes of pollution and deal with them. So far as I know, not one pollution control district has been set up. Some may have been set up of which knowledge escapes me. However, as I say, I do not know of one such district which has been set up in the area
Fisheries
I represent. I doubt if any districts have been set up anywhere across Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the public gets awfully fed up with pious platitudes and statements of noble sentiment, after which nothing is done. The Chinese have a saying: There is a lot of noise on the stairs, but no one enters the room. I say, the time has come to do something. When the Hon. Jack Davis introduced similar legislation several years ago we said: Instead of trying to deal with pollution by setting up pollution control districts which may not be effective, why cannot the government amend the Criminal Code. This the minister is now proposing to do, for which I commend him. I say to him that amendments to the Criminal Code will depend, for their effectiveness, on the activities and aggressiveness of fisheries officers. It will depend on those who search for and find the sources of pollution and a department which is sufficiently concerned to lay the several charges provided for in this bill. I will give the minister an example. In my constituency, many of the ships which come into the ports clean out their bilge tanks in the ports. The whole port is covered with scum. Everybody complains about it, but usually by the time the authorities are notified, the ship has already left.
In one case which was particularly offensive, charges were laid. The owners of the ship and the captain were hauled into court and fined, if I remember correctly, $5,000. As a matter of fact, $5,000 would not have begun to clean up the mess in the Chemainus harbour which was caused by the oil being dumped out of the ship's tanks. It would not have covered cleaning up the oil on all the small craft moored there which had to be hauled ashore and scrubbed and cleaned, to say nothing of the mess on the shore generally.
Therefore, unless the proposals which the minister is now making are going to be backed up by an adequate number of fisheries officers, the legislation will mean very little. I say this for the benefit of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) who should see that the department gets sufficient money in its budget to hire adequate staff to monitor the situation. This must then be backed up by the minister and an aggressive department to deal with the culprits. If culprits are dealt with decisively and seriously, it will be surprising how quickly the example of what has happened to those who are careless about polluting our waters will be transmitted to others who in the past have been equally careless.
I commend the minister for tackling this problem. It has been a long time waiting for some effective remedial action. I am glad the minister has brought this bill before the House. I think the comments which our party will want to make with respect to it can best be made before the standing committee. In the meantime, when this legislation passes with whatever amendment the House may choose to make, I trust the minister will provide the action to carry out the very excellent sentiments which he expressed in the House today.

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to tell the minister that I am pleased about the general contents of Bill C-38. It is somewhat rare to have unanimity in the House about a bill. I therefore hope that the information given to the public by the press will be objective, and that the Canadian people will understand the importance of the subject covered by the bill and, in general, cooperate so that this legislation may be applied with good results.
The bill aims at protecting our fisheries, at protecting the fish resources against poachers, especially professional poachers. There are some in all areas of the country. There are also a few small-time poachers, but they do not cause as much damage as those covered by this bill. There are also the polluters, those who use all sorts of chemicals in their industries and who do not care about the effects of the products used during manufacture. In my opinion, this legislation will invite them to be more cautious in the use of chemicals and more concerned about the damage that this waste material can cause.
There are also the destructors of the environment. They are not mentioned in the bill, but I think that the minister could examine this question. I refer to the polluters who damaged the environment by an inconsiderate destruction of our forests along our rivers or around our lakes. I have often witnessed destruction caused by the development of our forest resources, and even though this development provides employment for workers, it has disastrous consequences for the local environment: the fish disappear.
These are all matters that we should consider seriously. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when spring came when I was a child, we could witness nature's awakening and it was marvelous. On my parents' farm, there was a beautiful river which flowed into Lac-a-la-Truite. There were a great many lakes in my area and I used to accompany my parents, my older brothers and my friends on fishing expeditions: never would we come back with an empty bag; in fact, we always came back with large quantities of fish, while abiding by the laws, and it was interesting. Mr. Speaker, I remember that when, as a boy, I would go and get the cows, I always brought my fishing rod and tried my luck along the riverbank, so that there were always four or five fine trouts for my mother. She liked them very much and ate them with great appetite, and I knew this was one of the greatest pleasures I could give her. Last year, I went back to that area; again I tried my luck casting my line in these creeks and rivers, to no avail. There is nothing, not a single fish left in Lac-a-la-Truite or anywhere else. I realize that the company which operates the asbestos mines in those areas had to do it. They emptied the lake which is called Black Lake. There were natural resources there and the largest deposits of asbestos are under the lake. But, in developing that natural resource, they completely destroyed the environment: lake Williams, Black Lake, Lac-a-la-Truite, all rivers and brooks. There is nothing left now because at that time the necessary measures were not taken to protect the environment.

It is as a result of intense industrial development that our rivers, our lakes, our brooks were gradually emptied out and that we have seen at the same time enormous social benefits disappear. Our children could not only enjoy during their leisure time the beauty of nature, but also learn what nature is exactly. They could spend hours fishing, those were healthy leasure times which did not cost much to society but were very rewarding. Today when we say to our children: Go walk in the forest, go fishing. Their reply is: "There is nothing anymore, you fished everything out, you massacred everything." They blame us, and rightly so.
Over the weekend, Saturday to be precise, I went with the chairman of the Montmagny-l'Islet Rod and Gun Club, despite the bitter cold, to visit the "big lock" as it is called in the area, in the beautiful nearby municipality of Cap Saint-Ignace. The lock was built through grants from the Department of Manpower and Immigration. Significant amounts were invested twice to build a dam to regulate the river and provide a shelter for fish and give local people in Montmagny and other towns a recreational forest area. I was disappointed to note that although the lock was very well built, the force of water at high levels caused it to flow around the dam, so that large basin has now disappeared. This is a very unfortunate, because there was a lot of fish, and the scenery was beautiful for canoeing. I promised the chairman of the Montmagny-I'Is-Iet Rod and Gun club I would raise the matter at the first opportunity, and call this to the attention of the Minister of Fisheries and Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), so that funds can be allotted to repair the damage and restore that beautiful area. It is a real asset, a real encouragement to protect the environment, forests and wildlife.
I therefore welcome this opportunity, and I hope that the legislation can really open the door to a renewed effort to give better protection and get the people involved so that we may leave healthy environment to the next generation.
Yesterday, I also attended a maypole ceremony which, in our area, and probably everywhere else, consists in planting a tree to mark the end of an organization, of a series of meetings on a topic which may have been studied over a period of weeks. There again, this ceremony was held thanks to an assistance program.
Mr. Speaker, some may tell me that I insist too much on that program but I do so precisely because it gave such good results in my area that I want to talk about it and say to the government how much I appreciated it. Hundreds of young people, especially, attended that ceremony and I took advantage of it to point out to those youths how precious that tree, and the forest are to us; close by there flows a river towards the south. I also took that opportunity to invite the young, the whole population, to get together and see to it that the river, which has been polluted over the years, is cleaned up and become once again interesting, one in which nice fish may live again.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that last Thursday a 13-year old boy happened to spot a big 29-inch trout struggling to get free of the mud on the river bank. Then, coura-
May 16, 1977

geously, the little boy jumped in the river to get that 29-inch trout weighing seven or eight pounds and whose photo was published in the local paper. 1 have congratulated the little boy for his courage. He learned how to protect the environment, the fish and it is a fearless act that deserves to be mentioned.
Mr. Speaker, for all those reasons, I entirely support the fast passage of that legislation and then 1 hope that the regulations will be rational and known to the public. If we want the public to comply with regulations, those must be known because if they are not, they cannot be respected and we are not encouraged to cooperate. Those regulations should be well known to the public. I also wish that the department responsible for enforcing that legislation will apply it courageously not only to the weak who will fail to comply but also to the powerful. There should not be two standards of justice, there should be just one justice, one standard and the legislation should be applied strictly to big corporations that do not comply with regulations and laws. We should be as zealous as regards big corporations as we have been and will continue to be toward the weak. And the minister can be sure of one thing: he will have any co-operation and I will not intervene needlessly if I sincerely believe the legislation is properly applied, no matter the punishments or the fines that will be imposed. It will be in the public interest and 1 shall be pleased about it.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to be able to participate in the second reading debate on Bill C-38 to amend the Fisheries Act, and to support my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in his excellent suggestions drawing attention to some of the inequities which exist in some parts of the bill. However, he supported the principle of the bill, as have all my hon. friends who have spoken thus far.
It is obvious that the Fisheries Act needs revision. 1 am not too sure we should not be more concerned about the extensive powers of search and seizure given fisheries officers, because we have to keep in mind our fishermen, the extensive search powers of pollution inspectors, the possibility that conflict could arise over anti-pollution measures, and the possible conflict, constitutionally, with the provinces over anti-pollution measures. But I am sure that when the bill is sent to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry we can go into detail and correct any clauses which need correcting with the support of the minister.
The item I want to deal with has to do with clause 12 dealing with the catching of Atlantic salmon in sports rivers. It brings into focus measures to be taken to prevent the poaching of our rivers. I was glad to hear the minister tell us he needs to strengthen the capability to protect against the abuse of these resources. He is even going to the extent of confiscating gear and increasing fines dramatically. He mentioned the problems they are having in the province of New Brunswick, and I can tell the minister that those problems are being duplicated in
Fisheries
Newfoundland, the province I represent. Poaching is becoming increasingly a threat to the preservation of our salmon rivers.
The minister should direct his attention to the number of guardians hired, as well as to the number of man-hours and man-months provided for fisheries guardians who are taken on in the summer months during the salmon season. I say, with the greatest respect, that the government is being completely unrealistic in the measures it takes to prevent poaching when, on the one hand, many millions of dollars are spent in studies and meetings, decisions are made on man-hours and budgeting, restrictions are placed on quotas to help conserve our stocks to support the future of the industry-and I commend the minister for the action he has taken in a patient and progressive way in trying to protect the industry in years to come, an industry that could be the greatest industry in the country-while, on the other hand, completely ignoring the need to build up our guardian strength, giving as a lame excuse the lack of funds.
Each year the government keeps reducing the number of guardians and the number of man-hours or man-months. For example, last year the salmon season lasted from May 24 to December 15-and I presume it will be the same this year- but the number of man-hours allocated only allowed for guardians to patrol the rivers for 12 weeks, leaving many rivers unattended for most of the salmon season, which is contrary to the objective of river guardians.
What does this situation invite, Mr. Speaker? It invites poachers to have a field day-in fact, to have several field days. They can poach to their heart's content and literally rape our beautiful rivers, which are the wonderment of sports fishermen who in most cases are dedicatedly objective to the protection of our rivers and who I am sure will be happy with the amendments we are debating today to the bill.
What I find strange, Mr. Speaker, is that while the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) does not have the funds to keep the guardians on for the whole of the season, but has to lay them off in a good many cases after 12 weeks, his colleague, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), can continue to pay the same personnel the greater portion of their salary for doing nothing for another 39 weeks. On the other hand, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration has programs, such as the on the job training programs which allow an employer to train personnel-and 1 do not think the minister's department is excluded-and obtain 75 per cent of their salary. 1 can only suggest that the minister apply to his colleague for such a program so that he is able to protect our rivers by building up the strength of the guardians.
The minister must recognize the seriousness of the potential destruction of our salmon stocks. The government is inviting poaching because it lacks realism. The minister knows all about this, Mr. Speaker, because, as I said when I started my speech, he has this same problem in his own province of New Brunswick, which has evidently become not only a poacher's haven but, I understand, a prosperous business as well.
5678

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
Due to the shortage of staff and the length of some of our rivers, particularly in the province of Newfoundland, a fisheries officer, whether he be a warden or a guardian, has to take his life in his hands in that he travels alone, while poachers travel in pairs or in threes or fours. The minister can give a fisheries officer all the powers as a peace officer that he wants, but the problem is that the force is much too weak to provide the service which is needed. Unless the matter is treated with the urgency which it requires, this will be a blight on their responsibility to conserve stocks, an objective to which the minister is dedicated.
1 see no reason whatever for not keeping on river guardians for the remainder of the year, especially at the present time when they have to be trained to accept more powers as peace officers, as well as trained in anti-pollution measures which are being introduced in this bill and which will assist in attaining the objectives outlined in Bill C-38.
1 receive letter after letter during the salmon season, Mr. Speaker, and 1 should like to refer to one, among many, from an individual who has the conservation of our salmon stocks at heart. He writes:
I appeal to you, as a person who is greatly disturbed by the inadequacy of our present fishery in Newfoundland, to do something about providing more protection for our natural resources of fish. This protection should not only be given during the day, but there should be also increased night patrols and more adequate protection for our wardens during this time. Some people (I will classify them as no-nothings since I would rather not put my true feelings on paper) these people think that night patrols should be discontinued, however I can truthfully assure you there is a need for this protection and night patrols must continue no matter what the cost. Any warden who has done night patrols on any kind of a continued basis knows that there is certainly danger involved. What can one or two wardens do when faced by four or five men intent on poaching and not being stopped in the process. By far the greatest percentage of salmon poaching is carried out during the night hours.
I can confirm the statement that this gentleman makes, Mr. Speaker. Last year, during the salmon season, 1 contacted a fisheries officer in my district and asked him to allow me to visit one of the rivers. We picked one at random, and as soon as we got there we found not only no guardian but that poachers had damaged the fisheries hut, stolen the equipment, caused destruction of the beach and would have got away scot-free if I and the fisheries officer had not by chance made our visit.
Another serious inequity involves the treatment of guardians. It is of interest to note that in this day of inflation fisheries guardians within their headquarters area or patrol area are allowed one 65-cent meal or box lunch per day. This in 1977, Mr. Speaker. I must qualify this by saying that when outside their area of patrol or assignment they receive the regular allowance of $11.45; but a 65-cent box lunch per day for a river guardian who is on duty for only part of the season cannot be reconciled. The only way a guardian can properly fill his stomach and survive is by poaching some of the salmon. One of the guardians in my district has to patrol a 50-mile stretch of river. In view of some recent increases in salary, 1 would ask how the government can justify a miserly 65 cents box lunch per day. Enough about poachers of salmon, Mr. Speaker; I should like to move on.
[Mr. Marshall.)
It might be worth while to refer at this time to how the act will apply to fisheries officers during the seal hunt and the powers that they will have as peace officers. In this connection, 1 hope you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, to commend the conduct of fisheries officers during the recent seal hunt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: The minister can be justly proud of his fisheries officers who participated in the recent hunt. I also want to thank the minister for personally allowing me to visit the hunt and to witness at first-hand the restraint shown by fisheries officers in the face of deliberate attempts to provoke them on the part of the members of the "Greenpeace" organization who caused altercations in an effort to give a distorted image to Canadians of Newfoundlanders and their conduct of the seal hunt. To my mind, this is not only provocative but it is phony: it is ridiculous and it is not Canadian.
This focuses attention on the fact that, while fishery officers will have more power as peace officers, how do you deal with the case of-the adjective I want' to use is not parliamentary, so I will use a "bleep". 1 refer to Brian Davies, who deliberately contravened the seal protection act last year and was still allowed, with complete freedom, to carry out the same misdemeanours again-and he will continue to contravene the act as long as our laws for delays in acting against a man who is conning the public as the great pretender, the great protector of the seals. I ask the minister how he will give the officers more power if cases such as the Davies case are allowed to go on? 1 hope the minister will further amend the Fisheries Act, which he might have done in this bill, to give better protection to the sealers.
It is worth mentioning that myself and one of the hon. members from the other side, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), visited the hunt and saw the attention paid by interested Newfoundland citizens to support us in presenting a petition to the House of Commons. All members have sent out petitions to householders, fishermen and citizens in their districts. I am happy to say that out of the 25,000 I sent out less than a month ago, I now have over 13,000 names in my district on the west coast of Newfoundland alone. I am hoping every good Newfoundlander will sign that petition and gather other names. This is aside from the representation and the support given to us by many community councils and every organization in Newfoundland which knows the traditions and feels for the traditions of Newfoundlanders which have been in existence for so many years.
I will allow some of my colleagues to continue on other aspects of the bill. I hope we will be able to rectify some of the slight anomalies which exist. I would like to commend the minister for his efforts. He has the assurance we will get the bill through as quickly as possible so that we can put teeth into the act in order to protect our fishermen and the valuable stocks which we hope to preserve for the future.
May 16, 1977

]VIr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to hold up the passage of this bill unduly. We must take into account the difficulties in the committee structure as it now exists in this parliament and existed in the previous parliament. I disagree with the words of my hon. friend and neighbour, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), that this will be the place where we can look into these matters. Because of the committee structure, we cannot effectively look into them. Ten minutes for each member to bring forth his point and to get questions put forward are, surely, not enough.
Because we are talking about amendments to the Fisheries Act, I am going to use this opportunity to put on record a variety of matters which concern and trouble fishermen on the west coast. Before proceeding to specific itemization of those problems, as I have said on previous occasions, and as was mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse),
I want to make a comment concerning the regulations the minister is empowered to formulate. One other hon. member might have mentioned it as well. We are continually running into this problem. The regulations which the minister formulates, and possibly publishes, are difficult to obtain. I will come back to some of the existing regulations on which fishermen are having great difficulty getting their hands. They do not know the terms under which they are fishing, for example, and they are being regulated by regulations they do not know about. This is not good enough. We should have the regulations in front of us before we deal with this bill.
1 make a special request to the minister. He should have draft regulations covering the areas he is planning to change. There should be texts of the regulations before us when this bill goes to committee for study after second reading. This is vitally important. We saw in the maritime code when we were dealing with that matter the fear expressed across the country about those regulations. That made us hesitate to proceed with final reading on that occasion, and there is legitimate cause for fear about this legislation. I ask the minister to bring forward the draft regulations which he is planning to issue using the powers granted to him under this bill.
The first matter of concern to me, and of concern to the fishermen on the west coast, is the Canada-United States fisheries agreement which was concluded rather hastily following discussions in Los Angeles late in February where certain broad terms of agreement were reached, but not sufficiently firm to permit the conclusion of an agreement. Within a matter of a week, in order to enhance and give more propaganda value to the visit which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Washington and the discussions that were concluded there, there was a Canada-United States fisheries agreement concluded at that time.
On an earlier occasion I gave an indication, through presentation of statistics, of the value of the westcoast fisheries to the Canadian economy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Kaplan) rises on a point of order.
Fisheries


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, a number of hon. members wish to speak in private members' hour on notice of motion No. 11. In view of the position we have reached in dealing with the bill before the House, I wonder if there might be unanimous agreement to allow the hon. member to conclude his remarks in private members' hour. I point out that this is the second hour on which motion No. 11 has been before us in this session. The mover has already spoken on it, as have a number of members from both sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the proposal of the hon. parliamentary secretary. Is there agreement that we allow the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I gather the proposal of the parliamentary secretary is that we continue this debate for a few more moments and intrude on the private members' hour. Am I correct in my understanding?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my suggestion is simply that the hon. member be given time out of private members' hour to conclude.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I do not think that is necessarily going to solve anything in itself, inasmuch as there are two speakers who want to participate. While I want to co-operate in every way to expedite the business of this government, I think, since it is five o'clock, we should proceed to private members' hour.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Possibility of industrial strategy to avoid future high levels of unemployment; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Confederation-Possibility of establishing third organization concerned with unity; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski)-Energy-Proposed upgrading facility for heavy oil at Lloydminster-Government position on feasibility report.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
80016-19'/2

May 16, 1977
5680________________________
Excise Tax Act


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Notice of motion No. 16, in the name of the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Martin).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there is disposition to deal with notice of motion No. 11 and to allow the rest of the motions to stand at the request of the government.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, because of the interruption 1 would like to know whether it is clear to the House that I called it five o'clock.


Ralph Goodale: That is understood.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that all notices of motions prior to notice of motion No. 11 shall stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to delay debate in private members' hour, but I want to make it clear, as the parliamentary secretary to the minister responsible for the business which was before the House said, that there was no effort to cause any difficulty. We are anxious that the bill which was before the House until five o'clock should receive fair and reasonable debate.


EXCISE TAX ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from November 29, 1976, consideration of the motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Excise Tax Act in order to exempt all purchases made by municipal governments from the levy of federal sales tax and in so doing relieve municipal governments of the necessity of imposing additional local taxes to cover such federal sales tax.
Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). Municipalities in Canada are facing severe financial difficulties in spite of rigorous austerity measures on their part. Mayor Dan Munroe of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, president of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, has said that the municipal level of government could disappear from Canada in five years unless there is increased financial support from the federal government and the provinces. Mr. Munroe said, further, that property taxes cannot be expected to continue to pay for all municipal services. The situation facing many municipalities is
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
so serious that Mr. Munroe was prompted to say on their behalf:
We don't have money even for basic services now. I don't think the importance of our problem is being recognized at other levels.
That is a direct quote from the Ottawa Citizen of December 13, 1976. Recent increases in the consumer price index are especially distressing in the context of this motion, when we realize that such an index reflects increases in municipal tax rates. Another increase in municipal tax rates is likely because of rising costs in local government, so the Canadian citizen faces yet another inflationary blow to the power of the dollar. Municipal tax rate increases are reflected directly in the consumer price index.
Municipal taxes form 2.8513 per cent of the expenditure basket upon which the consumer price index is based. As a result, a 10 per cent increase in municipal taxes adds nearly one-third of 1 per cent to the rate of inflation. The impact of municipal tax changes to the consumer price index is nearly as great as the impact of changes in the mortgage interest rate. There is a great hue and cry by the financial community, and in newspaper editorials, when mortgage rates change. But who takes up the cry when hundreds of small and large towns must raise taxes to cover rising costs?
The gravity of this increased financial burden at the local level can be seen in the extreme pressure it places on people with fixed incomes who have spent their lives paying for houses as a retirement investment, only to find that increasing property taxes are turning their retirement dreams into nightmares.
One of the most challenging problems facing Canada today is that in ten years the senior citizen section of our nation will double in population. It is imperative that we do something positive to keep people independent and in their homes as long as possible. We simply cannot construct homes for the aged to cope with this increase. Then, too, the great human benefits that come to our citizens when they can remain independent of assistance as long as possible are part of a quality of life in Canada which we all seek. The removal of this property tax burden is part of the answer to this problem.
The anti-inflation white paper contained a commitment by the federal government to reassess the costs to the economy of its programs, rules and regulations. Surely, this tax by one level of government on another represents a cost to the Canadian economy, not to mention the fact that such a situation runs contrary to the basic principle of common law that the Crown should not tax itself.
As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Vegreville and others, much attention is paid to municipalities as centres of Canadian life and generators of employment. Funds saved by municipalities by the removal of the tax burden in question could be valuable sources of financing for programs at the local level or, better still, for decreased taxes. Instead of a circular type of financing in which we tax local governments to generate funds for the federal government and then see Ottawa use that money in programs such as Canada Works or, as it is commonly known, "Liberal works" which are imple-
May 16, 1977

merited back at the local level, would we not serve the Canadian economy better if we left this money with local authorities?
In this say Canadians would gain money previously spent on administration, collection and other areas of red tape. As well, more of the responsibility for local problems would be in the hands of municipal governments which are closest to the people and can respond to local situations. My experience with local municipalities is that they know best what their people need. It is not always what provincial or federal authorities deem to be in their best interests. Municipalities in Canada face numerous difficulties of administration as they try to sift through the complex of exemptions and inclusions which appear in the Excise Tax Act.
Water treatment plants have now been made exempt under the act, but certain equipment is taxable. In a water treatment plant, a pipe on one side of a wall may be taxable, but the same pipe can be exempt from taxation if it is connected on the other side of the same wall. As I have said in this House before, if the sales tax was removed from electrical supplies, as it has been with water treatment equipment, just think what it could mean to subdivision costs, thereby lessening the cost of new home building. When a bridge is built, the guard rails on it are exempt from taxation. However, the materials used in the road leading up to the bridge, including its guard rails, are not exempt.
A day-care centre, if properly registered with the Department of National Revenue, still pays federal sales tax on equipment which it purchases, but receives a rebate for such moneys. The effect of this situation is to force a municipality the size of Ottawa-Carleton to add two additional accountants to its payroll in order to administer the bookkeeping necessary to claim a rebate.
Municipal fire department buildings are taxed, but fire hoses and couplings are not. A municipality which runs its own printing service will find that materials used in that operation are taxed on the basis that such printing service is in competition with local private printing businesses. This is a fair and logical situation. However, municipalities' building and maintenance of road and water services is not done in competition with other businesses, and yet taxes are still levied on the purchase of equipment necessary for those projects. If we apply the rationale which seems to be involved in the Excise Tax Act and its provisions, perhaps the government should consider taxing the Post Office since it operates in competition with private courier services.
The complicated nature of the Excise Tax Act means that much unnecessary time is spent by municipalities separating potential purchase items according to whether they are exempt from federal sales tax as well as on the actual paperwork for the taxes themselves. These administrative costs can present a substantial burden in time and payroll to Canadian municipalities, especially smaller communities. The whole matter of preparing bids for capital expenditures is greatly complicated by this maze of exemptions and non-exemptions.
Excise Tax Act
The increased cost for this "sheep and goats" situation can only be financed by municipalities through an increase in property taxes which, as has been mentioned, is a shrinking source of funds and causes great hardship for people on fixed incomes. If a municipality is forced to borrow in order to finance capital expenditures made more expensive by federal sales tax, such loans are only available at rates higher than those which the federal government can borrow.
In one department of one municipality alone, the savings which would accrue from the exemption of municipal governments from federal sales tax is very significant. In the transport and works department of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, the withdrawal of federal sales tax would lead to a saving of $450,000 on the 1977 budget. As well, similar exemptions applied to the 1977 construction program would gain an additional $250,000. Thus, Mr. Speaker, one department of one municipality in Canada would realize $700,000 from the exemption of federal sales tax-money which could serve the needs of Canadians in their local communities.
The duplication of services and double taxation is all the more distressing in the inflationary times which Canada faces today. The Globe and Mail of May 11 reports the former auditor general, Maxwell Henderson, referring to the $45 billion budget the federal government brought in this year, as saying:
That $45 billion is fuelling the fires of inflation, and we should cut spending by 10 per cent each year until it's cut in half to $22 billion-it's feasible.
If the federal government spending could be cut by one-half, why is it necessary to tax Canadian municipalities in their efforts to provide services to their citizens? In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the House to the words of Jules Renard, a Frenchman of letters and former mayor of Chaumot. Renard said:
I know at last what distinguishes man from animals: financial worries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this very worth-while motion, even though I have some problems with it. I come from a large suburban riding and I am aware of the tremendous problems that face municipal taxpayers as a result of the increased costs faced by municipalities which they have had to pass along to taxpayers.
Without reflecting in any way on the riding of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), if there is a burden faced by small communities, and special arguments can be made for exemption of equipment and materials they buy under the Excise Tax Act, then certainly there are different but equally important arguments for huge metropolitan areas with dense populations. These and other factors make it worth while considering the merits of the motion.

May 16, 1977
Excise Tax Act
At the outset I want to recognize that the motion does not, in principle, call for something new in the sense that the Excise Tax Act currently exempts from federal sales tax a comprehensive list of articles and materials sold to or imported by municipalities for their own use and not for resale. Included in the list are exemptions of which some hon. members may not be aware, such as goods for use in water distribution, sewage or drainage systems, materials and machinery used in the construction of municipal incinerators, culverts, equipment at a price in excess of $500 per unit specially designed for use directly for road-making, road-cleaning or firefighting, but not including automobiles or ordinary motor trucks, fire hose, including couplings and nozzles. Only in the last year or so have couplings been perfected by researchers and scientists.
I am sure the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine), who is very interested in research and development in Canada, will be glad to know that there has been designed what is called a "unisexual" coupling for fire hoses. This is terribly important when there is a fire and experts move quickly to put together the hoses to reach the source of the fire and put it out. Certainly, it is going to be terribly important in fighting forest fires. Exempt, also, are fire truck chassis for the permanent attachment thereon of firefighting equipment for use directly in firefighting.
It can be seen from the long list of exemptions that there are some allowances in this area now, and that they relate especially to where municipal governments have very serious responsibilities. They must spend money to do these things in order to protect their citizens. The government of Canada has recognized this and has allowed forgiveness in a number of areas. Federal sales tax also has been removed from larger trucks and most types of construction equipment. Consequently, municipal purchases of most garbage-handling equipment, and virtually all major road construction equipment, are currently exempt from federal sales tax. Certified public hospitals are not required to pay federal sales tax on any of their purchases, and libraries and schools are exempt from federal sales tax on most of their purchases. In addition, municipalities are also exempt from payment of the 10-cent per gallon special excise tax on gasoline.
Whatever else comes out of this debate, and whatever conclusions are reached, it cannot be argued that the federal government has not already gone a very long way to try to understand the problems of municipalities and the burdens on municipal taxpayers. Even though the government has its obligations, it has tried to collect revenues in order to meet its commitments and responsibilities under the constitution and has made a real effort to co-operate with municipalities in essential areas.
The primary justification for providing federal sales tax exemptions for municipalities arises from a desire to provide indirect financial assistance to local governments. Municipalities fall under the legislative jurisdiction of the provinces and it is always difficult for the federal government to come directly to their financial assistance. Indirect financial help through sales tax exemptions is one way of achieving this result. I

suspect that this amount of money is very significant to them, and I should like to go into some detail of the dollars and cents involved.
I might also point out that the federal government has taken important initiatives which are of indirect financial assistance to municipalities. For example, a decision by the federal government in 1973 to include the school-purpose portion of municipal property taxes in the formula for calculating federal equalization payments results in an annual payment of approximately $225 million to the provinces. This money is passed to the provinces unconditionally and would be of indirect benefit to the municipalities. Another important federal program which indirectly would ease the burden on municipalities is the funding by the federal government of 50 per cent of the cost of certain secondary education programs. Fifty cents out of every dollar spent on post-secondary education, of course, for some time was applied to the provinces from moneys garnered by the federal government.
The hon. member for Vegreville will also be aware that the federal government provides significant funding for the operation of hospitals and the financing of medicare programs. These contributions are of significant indirect financial benefit to the municipalities. This cannot be done directly under the constitution.
Each year, municipalities press vigorously for further sales tax exemptions. In this regard, some of the exemptions they now have are opposed by private contractors who claim that they face unfair competition from municipalities using tax-exempt equipment. Their concern was especially evident prior to the government's decision to remove federal sales tax from most construction and transportation equipment. I am sure some hon. members remember that battle royal.
The matter of equity for those small contractors is one of concern in a constituency like mine. A great many new Canadians work for those small firms-not the big wealthy operations-who count on being able to have access to and tender for municipal contracts. They would certainly be at a disadvantage if the motion before us were successful.
It is also worth noting that the federal government does not itself have an exemption under the Excise Tax Act with respect to any of its purchases. Also, the provinces, which are much more closely related to the municipalities than is the federal government, are much less generous than is the federal government in providing exemptions from provincial sales taxes for municipal purchases.
A matter which is perhaps more significant is that the present objective of the federal government and several of the provinces is to move to a system of reciprocal taxation for accommodating taxes in the area of intergovernmental taxation. That is a pretty complicated phrase. Let me try to explain it. Under this system, the federal government would pay provincial sales taxes on all taxable purchases from a given province and the provincial government would pay federal taxes on their taxable purchases. Any move to enlarge the list
May 16, 1977

of exemptions from federal sales taxes on municipal purchases would, therefore, be contrary to that general objective toward which we are now working.
Finally, it should be emphasized that many municipal purchases are currently exempt from federal sales tax. The major categories of goods purchased by municipalities which are presently subject to federal sales tax include construction materials, taxed at the reduced rate of 5 per cent, automobiles, office furniture and equipment. If additional sales tax relief were to be provided to the municipalities, this would result in significant loss of revenue which would have to be made up from tax increases in other areas. Therefore, it would be a matter of giving with one hand and taking back with the other.
Let me say that as a member of parliament I am frustrated when constituents complain to me about their municipal taxes since I, as a federal representative, have no direct control over the level of municipal taxation. The federal government provides hundreds of millions of dollars worth of grants to assist provinces and municipalities, but finds that officials of lower levels of government do not feel as great a responsibility with respect to the spending of funds as members at the federal level. Officials at lower levels are not directly responsible for the raising of money; hence they do not feel such a great responsibility in spending it. By being able to acquire grants and other assistance from the federal government, they have ready access to money for which they have not had to impose direct taxes on the public.
Although the hon. member's proposal has merit, it would be difficult to argue that the federal government has not been generous. It has recognized need and backed that recognition with indirect payments made in a number of ways to relieve the burden of costs for equipment and materials which must be borne by municipalities. As well, the government's responsibility in spending is restricted to the spending of those moneys over which under the constitution it has direct powers, these being moneys with respect to the collection and spending of which the government is answerable to the electorate.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, my intervention in the debate on the excellent motion proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) will be brief. Speaking as a former municipal official, I am aware how frustrated municipal governments are and what problems they encounter in their attempts to raise money through taxation. The municipal government is government closest to the people and also the first to bear the brunt of taxpayers' criticism. The provincial government is somewhat more remote from the taxpayer. We, in these hallowed halls of the so-called highest level of government, are even further removed. We can impose taxes and the people can yell, but because we are so far removed from them there is little they can do.
I served on a municipal council for 31 years. For 26 years I served as reeve of a small municipality. I also served for many years on provincial organizations such as the Ontario mayors and reeves association and, latterly, on the association of municipalities of Ontario. Time and again, when resolutions would come before that association it was resolved that the
Excise Tax Act
request supported by the municipal organization requesting the discontinuance of federal sales tax on municipal purchases should be forwarded to the federal government.
I note the comments of my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott). The savings she mentioned would come to a staggering amount in a city the size of Ottawa. She suggested, I think, that if the motion were adopted it would enable the city of Ottawa to save close to half a million dollars in one month alone. The money which could be saved in a large metropolitan centre like Toronto is so large as to be difficult to visualize.
I also note the remarks of the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming). In addition to the items he mentioned, municipalities must buy equipment such as road machinery, fire trucks, and so on. Therefore, without question, adoption of the proposal would bring the municipalities great relief. I suggest that the point the hon. member raised is almost an argument for going the whole way. The government allows some exemptions now. I ask, why make the municipalities the bookkeepers and collectors of additional taxes levied with respect to pencils, paper and various other items municipalities use items which form a small proportion of the total value of the materials purchased? I know that the representatives of many municipalities feel as I do.
Some years ago there were 951 municipalities in Ontario. That number was reduced with the creation of new forms of government such as regional municipalities and the amalgamation of small municipalities. Today I believe there are in excess of 700 municipalities in Ontario. I feel that the federal government should say, in this particular case, "Why should we tax little brother, our municipal government, or our little grandson," as the case may be, "and extract the last pound of flesh. We do not want to tax in that manner. Therefore, the Department of National Revenue, excise division, will provide the municipalities with the necessary relief."
I say, why not be magnanimous, why not go the whole way and not collect such taxes from municipal governments? Our municipal governments are having a tough time raising money, most of which comes from real estate taxes. True, some people in the municipalities may have fair-sized homes, but their incomes are not necessarily in keeping with the size of their houses. If this motion were to pass and municipal councils could thereby save money, I am sure that they would channel these savings in the proper direction. For all these reasons, I hope the government will approve this motion.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) proposes in his motion that the federal government should exempt all purchases made by municipal governments from federal sales tax. As an old municipal politician, I know the value of tax exemptions. As was made clear, the federal government is at present doing a great deal in this field. The hon. member on my side of the House spoke of many ways in which the federal government helps municipalities. I find it strange that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) should complain bitterly about the federal govern-

May 16, 1977
Excise Tax Act
merit's power to collect taxes from municipalities, since his party in Ontario has, with the formation of regional governments in some cases, increased tax loads three or fourfold over their original level in the individual or smaller municipalities.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Nonsense.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: The hon. member has failed to recognize that.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Nonsense. You don't know what you are talking about.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: I remember attending a convention of small municipalities in Parry Sound some six or seven years ago. The announcement was made that Huntsville was to be included in the regional area.
The people in those municipalities seemed to be happy about it. They obviously did not know what was going to happen in the long run. They were happy because they thought they would have a broader tax base. They certainly did not realize that with a broader tax base you need a bigger bureaucracy and are farther away from the little people.


Stan Darling: Parry Sound hasn't got it.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: Neither has Strathroy. It is a difficult position we find ourselves in here because of the constitutional problem. The provinces, of course, have great sway over the municipalities, a lot more than the federal government.
If we are going to look at a new and revitalized constitution, we realize that we have to take care of the inequities, not only in the regions but also in the provinces and municipalities. It is time that the small municipalities and the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Reeves or the Canadian Federation of Mayors were involved in this dialogue. If we are going to look at a new and revitalized constitution to bring us up to date in the seventies, these people in the municipalities have to be involved. As the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) mentioned, they are the grass roots people, the ones who realize the problems of the local areas. An individual member has cognizance of the local problems, but sometimes we are a little too far removed from the people paying the taxes.
It has been proven in the past that when the government gets away from the people, it loses contact. If the constitutionalists get together, I am afraid they will not get the input from the people who will make this country work and make it run properly.
They have ideas at the municipal level. At one time I was a member of the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Reeves and also of the small municipalities organization. I thought the talk at those conventions and the ideas that came from the small municipalities and the middle and larger municipalities has a more common sense base than we sometimes see federally or provincially. The mayors of those municipalities know the

problems of, taxation. They have been pushed in a corner over the past 50 or 60 years because of their lack of tax base.
As I mentioned previously, I certainly agree with this motion of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). We should support tax relief for the municipalities at all times because it is a double taxation. We are taxing them and they are taxing the people. We get money on one side from the federal tax and retax through the municipality. Because of their short and small tax base, they do not have the opportunity to have the taxing power they should possess. This could be done through constitutional change, but it is a two-way street. The provinces have to realize, maybe even more than the federal government, how much they have usurped the municipalities chance of taxation. This is for many reasons, maybe because bigger was better at some time in the past. Anyway they seemed to believe that. The municipalities know it is not true.
The municipalities are restricted so much in their taxing policy that their hands are tied. They are tied to the ordinary cost of increase on a current basis. Also, they are tied because of the major grants that come in. The municipalities have to come up with 20 per cent when somebody gives them 80 per cent. The tax dollar is a dollar that is spent federally, provincially, or municipally.
Another problem in the tax base is education. The municipalities are just a collecting agency for that. Indeed they are a collecting agency for which work they get no remuneration. If it were not going too far, I would say that maybe the school boards should collect their own taxes. However, I am afraid that would just add another bureaucracy.


Stan Darling: Your council would like that.


Joseph Lawrence (Larry) Condon: I am sure the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka would agree wholeheartedly. It was very difficult when I was mayor. You worked like a son-of-a-gun to try to keep your mill rate down to a 1 or 2 per cent increase, and the school board would hop in with a 20 per cent increase.
What jurisdiction would the school boards have if there were a change in the Constitution? Should there not be some power for the boards which represent the same people? This is one of the problems we will have to face when it comes time to look at the constitution.
When looking at the Constitution in the future, the Canadian Federation of Mayors and Reeves should be represented. They are the people who know the problems of the municipalities. There are very few people in Ottawa and Toronto who know those problems. I saw some of the problems the people from Toronto had when they tried to jam regional government down our throat in the London area. Because they were so far away, they had a problem finding the town hall. But they came from Toronto to tell us how to run our cities and towns.
Although I strayed off the matter of excise tax, I hope that some of these proposals of the hon. member for Vegreville will be followed through. I hope there will be a complete review of
May 16, 1977

the tax structure for all of Canada in any planned constitutional change, which I hope we will have very soon.


William Ross Milne: Mr. Speaker, I want to enter this debate to make a very few comments. 1 want first to compliment the mover of the motion. It is a good motion, it has merit, and certainly should be debated in this House.
The municipality I come from certainly has some problems in raising the amount of revenue to answer all the demands that people living in the municipality place upon it, largely because it is a very fast growing municipality. At one time everyone thought that growth was a good economic thing. However, most municipalities are now finding that it is very costly.
I want to make a couple of comments on one or two points of which we should not lose track. First, there is a very fundamental point in terms of taxation. Whatever level of government is providing a service should be the level of government that is taxing for that service.
I would be very concerned if, over the years, the federal government became nothing more than a taxing organization and transferred most of the taxes it collected to the provinces which, presumably, in turn transferred a portion to the municipalities. That is a trend that has taken place over the past five or ten years. It has not been very healthy in our system of government whereby more and more or our federal tax revenues are transferred to the provinces and more of the provincial revenues are transferred to the municipalities.
I agree with the previous speaker in making the comment that as we enter into the national unity debate, particularly from a constitutional point of view, we should look at this point. In other words, we should redefine not only what might be the federal powers and those of the various provinces, but most definitely we should talk about what the powers of the municipalities should be as well. There are certainly responsibilities as seen by municipalities that might be as well or better handled by the provincial government, the same as there might be responsibilities carried out by the provincial government that should be vested with the federal government.
Most of the conversation we hear now about the Constitution deals with how much power the federal government should give to the various provinces. It should be on the record that there is a case to be analysed for three levels of government and to sort out clearly which ones have responsibility for which functions, and in turn look at the financing of them. That would be a much healthier situation than we seem to have at the present time where we are looking more and more at the federal government as a broad taxing organization, hoping that the taxation so raised is transferred to the provinces and passed in turn to the municipalities.
The whole question of accountability should surely be considered. If we go further in terms of exempting certain bodies from taxes, from increasing revenue passing from one level of
Excise Tax Act
government to the other, it seems to me it makes it almost impossible for the taxpayer to hold the various levels of government accountable for the taxation policies they have been following.
It seems to me another argument could be set out too, that is, whether an across-the-board exempting of federal sales tax is really effective in helping a municipality, or whether a municipality would be further ahead if it argued successfully for the federal government to take on as a share of the cost of some programs. Coming from a municipality which probably has one of the highest growth rates in Canada, I think one of the best things the federal government has done to aid that municipality for some time was under the federal housing action program whereby the government recognized the high cost faced by a municipality such as Brampton where such a large number of new homes are needed each year, and made available $1,000 per housing unit in accordance with criteria set out under the program. This seems to me to be a more useful approach than an across-the-board exemption from federal sales tax, because it speaks directly to a specific concern.
I also want to raise a concern which has been voiced by a number of municipal people about a program which, at the present time, is a very costly one to municipalities, that is, the arrangement for dealing with children who are in conflict with the law. Many times, when this situation arises, the court will determine whether these children should be looked after by the Children's Aid Society or whether they should be placed in private homes or homes run by private organizations. Of course the court makes the best determination it can, but a very different financial obligation depends on the decision. In one case the municipality gets a substantial amount of grant; in the other case the entire cost of the court decision falls upon the municipality. It seems to me we should be looking at some of these specifics and discussing how such a problem as that should be best handled by the sharing of the cost, rather than an across-the-board exemption of federal sales tax to municipalities.
When I was listening to my hon. friend from York West, I was impressed by the long list of articles municipalities can purchase free of tax. I was not aware that the tax exemption of municipalities was as wide as it is. But in spite of the long list read by the hon. member one could add a couple of more current exemptions which are very significant. One is the removal of federal sales tax from urban transit equipment. This was done to answer a very specific need, to promote urban transportation and to reduce the cost of municipalities. That is as it should be, because it is a national concern.
In the same category is the removal of federal sales tax from insulating materials. Energy conservation is the concern of every Canadian and this is a way by which the federal government wanted to assist in promoting energy conservation; it is doing this by means of a financial incentive which shows up.
I would rather see the federal government look at some of the specific programs which are difficult for municipalities to
5686

May 16, 1977
Excise Tax Act
handle, and perhaps participate in them, as opposed to giving across-the-board exemptions from federal sales tax at the municipal level. If tax exemptions are too wide you introduce the whole question of unfairness into the tax system in that some people are required to pay and others are not. One concern often expressed recently is that governments at all levels, including the municipalities, should be using private sector services a good deal more as opposed to employing people and building up a staff to handle all their problems in their entirety. If you were to exempt the municipalities across-the-board from federal sales tax it would go the opposite way to that argument.
In most cases it would be cheaper for the municipalities to do things themselves than to contract with the private sector which would be forced to pay purchase tax and which could therefore not compete on an equitable basis with the municipalities. I do not think that would sit very well with the private sector. They would have a very valid complaint if they were asked to be prepared to tender against the cost at which a municipality could carry out the service when the municipality was able to purchase whatever equipment or material it required free from sales tax. The hon. member might think about that aspect before pursuing the motion further.
I think all municipalities, in conjunction with the majority of provinces, and most certainly the federal government have worked very hard at keeping government expenses under control. Yet as I understand it, particularly in Ontario, the municipalities are obligated to budget for and collect school taxes without having any jurisdiction over what that level of taxation should be. I understand that the municipality I come from will this year issue separate tax notices to draw the attention of the people living in the municipality to which level of cost is which; people then can make their own judgment as to how prudent the municipality has been versus the education authority. I do not want to become involved in that debate except to raise the point that I think this is one of the concerns that municipalities have. It is the total tax bill that they have to present to the taxpayer that concerns them when they have some very legitimate programs that they want to proceed with and yet, of necessity, they must draw back because of increased education costs. I think this is the genesis of the pressure reflected in the motion. But the previous speaker made a good suggestion when he said that each level of jurisdiction providing services should be responsible for its own taxation. That is probably the better answer.
I just wanted to participate in the debate in order to raise two or three points which came to my mind as I was listening to the opening speeches this afternoon. I return to the point that we need to be very careful, in terms of our over-all taxation policy, to keep accountability within the jurisdiction which is providing the services. If you exempt municipalities and other bodies from federal sales tax, as has been suggested in a number of private members' bills and motions, you arrive at a situation where the federal government becomes a major taxing body whose programs consist mainly of transferring revenue to provinces. To my mind, this would not be in

keeping with federal taxation law. I appreciate having had the opportunity to add a few words to this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine).


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame!


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Wasting the time of the House!


Mr. Frank Maine (Wellington):: I am not wasting the time of the House. I am talking this motion out. I think it is time we called an end to this farce we call the private members' hour and what goes on here, aided and abetted by the official opposition. They claim to be helping dispose of this matter, but what did the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) do but fill the House with hot air and righteous indignation when he said they do not want to carry on with the bill but want to get on with private members' business. You know darned well-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Get on to the subject.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: I am getting on to the subject. I am getting on to the subject that this motion is going to be talked out. Hon. members opposite should appreciate the fact that this motion has already been debated for one hour. The motion has been brought forward and discussed, the position of the government has been stated, and several members have elaborated on this.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then let us vote.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: We sure do have a lot of hot air coming from Saskatoon-Biggar this afternoon, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: There is plenty on that side too.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: You are going to have five more minutes of it because this motion is going to be talked out and that is the position of the government. It is about time we changed the rules of this House and brought them more up to date, instead of this ridiculous nonsense of wasting the time of the House on matters on which we have already decided. Let us get on with business which is much more pressing and important to this country in this day and age. It is about time the House realized that we have to get into this century and bring the rules of the House up to date, instead of the procrastination and hot air nonsense which comes from the hot air twins from Saskatoon and Edmonton.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is rising on a point of order.
May 16, 1977


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I regret to interrupt at this time but I think the hon. member is casting a reflection upon the intent and purport of the motion, which I advanced in good faith. 1 was sincere in the issue which I brought forth, and it is certainly not becoming of him to suggest that the issue which 1 brought forth in this Chamber for debate is frivolous, empty, and meaningless. 1 mean this most seriously. 1 think it is casting a reflection upon all members of the House, and 1 hope he will either withdraw or get on the right track.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Withdraw.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, as I understand the remarks of the hon. member he was reflecting not on the motives of the hon. member or on his intentions in bringing this very worthy motion forward, an issue about which there is a lot of public debate, but merely on this sterile practice which the private members' hour has become, and which I think our Committee on Procedure and Organization has recognized certainly ought to be improved.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, the member whose remarks caused the interruption on the part of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), which I think was a justifiable interruption, made the intention of the government with respect to this matter absolutely clear: he was put up purely and simply to talk out the motion.
I want to say to the hon. member, through you, Mr. Speaker, that that is a questionable practice which has carried on for much too long. There are a lot of good private members' motions, and one of them is the one advanced by the hon. member for Vegreville. This attitude, which has been now expressed openly and honestly for the first time, of talking out that which is good, if it is advanced by a member of the opposition, if it deals with a point which the government may not agree with, has now become the order of business of this House. I hope that members in this Chamber take note of this reprehensible practice on the part of the government, which serves to denigrate private members' business in this Chamber.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I was going to ask the hon. member whether he would accept a question, although my friend from Grenville-Carleton has made the point. Did I understand the hon. member to say that the reason he is talking this motion out is because it was a government decision to do so?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. 1 think all hon. members who have participated have made their points very clearly. I doubt if the hon. member for Wellington is directing his remarks to the intent of the mover of the motion. As I heard it, he was making remarks about the hour for private members' business, but I hope he will address his remarks to the motion before us.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Answer the question.
Excise Tax Act


Francis William (Frank) Maine: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer the question raised by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski). I was certainly not imputing any motives to nim in proposing his motion. I was saying that the decision had been made as to the disposition of the motion, and that that action had been taken. As to what followed, I was referring to the action of some hon. members opposite, and that is what 1 meant when 1 said the comments were fanciful and frivolous.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We will see the blues.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member a government puppet?


Francis William (Frank) Maine: No, the hon. member is not a government puppet. The hon. member is trying to help the government succeed with its business, and that business has decided that this motion will not come to a vote in this hour. I am doing my best to help make sure that that comes to pass.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now we know.


Francis William (Frank) Maine: It is about time you woke up if you did not know that before now. I do not know how long hon. members have been here, but if they have not learned that before now, they have been awfully slow in learning, Mr. Speaker. May I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: No. Question!


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) is to be congratulated for having brought up this question in the House. It has not only stimulated our thinking but in the past hour has allowed several members to come forward with a number of good ideas and suggestions. I was particularly intrigued by the thought expressed by the new member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) that favourable consideration of this proposal might eventually find its expression in a reduced tax which would benefit the municipal taxpayers at large.
To me, Mr. Speaker, this motion raises a very interesting subject, as it does to many of us who have, to some extent, a municipal background. We know from experience that in this country taxes are levied on municipalities by the provincial government as well as the federal government. At the same time municipal governments levy taxes on provincial governments and the federal government, or payments in lieu of taxes, so that there is a give and take on either side.
Contrary to what has been said by previous speakers in this debate, it seems to me that there is no need to change our Constitution in order to bring about a better deal for municipalities. It is a well known fact-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
80016-20!^

May 16, 1977
Fisheries AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-38, to amend the Fisheries Act and to amend the Criminal Code in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, before I called it five o'clock I indicated it was my intention not to delay the bill but to make use of this opportunity to set forth a number of the concerns and worries of the fishermen on the west coast. Many of these stem from the recently concluded Canada-United States Reciprocal Fisheries Agreement which was signed, as 1 recall, just following the visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Washington at the end of February. That document has not been referred to the committee so far. 1 am not even sure it has been tabled in the House. I feel it is one of the documents we should have available to us. I would ask the minister to make sure it is tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity because it is difficult to make specific reference to it without having the document in front of us, although there are a number of problems that have arisen out of it.
The purported purpose of the agreement was summarized in a document which reached me last week from the Pacific Trollers' Association. It is worth reading because it is pertinent to their present worries. The document reads as follows:
The bilateral agreement between Canada and U.S.A. sought to maintain fishery of both countries in accordance with existing patterns.
I see the minister nodding his head. This is what they were trying to do. It goes on to say:
Whilst both countries recognize that each has the right to manage fisheries within its jurisdiction within the terms of its domestic laws, the agreement nevertheless clearly spelled out that in the application of domestic laws, the contracting parties shall be guided by the principles of:
(a)	preserving existing pattern of reciprocal fisheries; and
(b)	in the case of reciprocal salmon fisheries, recognizing the interest of the state of origin in salmon spawned in its rivers.
This is a very good summary of the convention, as I understand it, but I do think it would be useful to have the text in front of us.
We are not sure whether the terms of this interim agreement have been fully implemented, because the ink on this agreement was barely dry when there was a recommendation
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier).]
by the U.S. Pacific Regional Council which, to my understanding, undercut some of these principles. Here again I would like to cite this brief of the Pacific troller men because I think it sets forth their concerns as they see them. I am sure these are more than perceptions; these are facts which are facing fishermen today. The brief states that the fisheries plan of the United States Pacific Regional Council, which has now been promulgated into law, stipulates closures from April 15 to April 30, June 1 to June 30, and after September 15 north of Tillamookhead, and prior to the cohoe opening on July 1 mandatory use of single barbless hooks on all terminal gears. With the exception of the mandatory use of single barbless hooks such regulations which take 12 weeks out of the normal 26 weeks fishing in the area not even aimed at conservation.
What is worrying fishermen-and I am not sure this message is getting across to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc)-is that this denies one of the principles, if not both of those principles, underlined in the reciprocal agreement, that is, preserving the existing pattern of reciprocal fisheries.
Here is a unilateral action by one country, changing the terms under which fishing may be done in its waters. Granted, it is domestic law, but it is well known that Canadians Fish in U.S. waters just as U.S. fishermen fish in our waters.
Second, "They should recognize the interest of the state of origin in the salmon spawned in its rivers." This new recommendation by the U.S. Pacific Regional Council is likely to affect the salmon heading for the Fraser River. In other words, the United States unilaterally has made decisions about the fish heading up to the Fraser River. The use of gear, of course, is another unilateral decision.
As I indicated, the troller men in B.C. are worried about these moves, and having heard not only from troller men but also from others in the area, I feel there is a danger of retaliation by way of a request to close Canadian waters to U.S. fishermen. We have heard of the cod war in the waters of the North Atlantic. I do not think we want to see a salmon war on the Pacific coast, but unilateral actions of this kind, which belie and undercut an agreement which was concluded in good faith between both parties, could lead to some unfortunate actions.
On April 4 of this year I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) about an aide memoire, which I had been told was left with the State Department in Washington, concerning the application of certain domestic regulations to the fisheries on the west coast. As I understand it, that was a secret aide memoire. There was some misunderstanding. My question appears at page 4592 of Hansard. I asked that that aide memoire be tabled in the House. There has been no reaction from either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. However, there is a sneaking suspicion in everyone's mind that this aide memoire gave the U.S. authorities permission to go ahead with taking unilateral decisions affecting the fisheries off the Pacific coast. If that is not so-and I see the minister shaking his head in obvious disagreement-then I
May 16, 1977

suggest that the minister table this memorandum along with the reciprocal agreement so that we may all see them.
Of great concern to fishermen on the west coast are the consequences of the implementation of what is known as the Judge Boldt decision on Indian fishing. This gives U.S. Indian fishermen special rights, and as I understand the traditional principles underlying our reciprocal arrangements, the 50-50 split between Canadian fish caught by American fishermen and American fish caught by Canadian fishermen includes those fish which are taken by treaty Indians.
There has been a follow-up on this decison, and on my way back to Ottawa from my riding over the weekend I picked up the Sunday paper and there, large as life, was an account of where this might be leading. It is causing concern to a different group of fishermen because it seems that the United States granted the Indians the right to fish beyond the 12-mile limit with gill nets out in that area where they will have the first take of the fish coming into the Straits of Juan de Fuca. Whether this fear is real or imagined, it is there. It is causing fishermen concern, and I think this has to be examined very closely.
I mentioned the danger of a fish war off the coast. That is the kind of talk which appears in this article. I do not like to see it. I feel that the whole issue of the settlement of the division of the catch has to be dealt with immediately. The reciprocal agreement is fine provided it is lived up to, but it looks as though it is being undercut at every turn, and I therefore implore the minister to make sure that his officials are either inviting their counterparts from Washington to come here and talk these matters over, or going down to Washington to make sure that matters do not get out of hand.
First and foremost-and this is a principle which has been enunciated in this House-we must restore respect for treaty provisions. We do not want to undercut those provisions. We do not want to take unilateral action which would deny the undertaking we have given, and we certainly do not want those undertakings which have been given by another country to be undercut, to our detriment.
Still in this area of bilateral concerns on the west coast I come back to the extension of the boundary. I have been given to understand that there have been two or three submissions to the government in the last three or four weeks about the boundary line out to the 200-mile limit as promulgated in the Gazette. A new approach has been made, and I believe the province of British Columbia, among others, has suggested the San Juan trench as being the line which ought to define the boundary limits between the Canadian and the U.S. fisheries. This makes a fair amount of sense. I realize there is a problem regarding the trench on the east coast, but it is a principle that was accepted in New York, Geneva, and Caracas.
It has been accepted for a long time that if there are special circumstances that need to be taken into account in the definition or delimitation of areas, then those special circumstances could prevail over the median line approach. Here you
Fisheries
have an extension of the continental shelf out to the trench. It is a natural fishing area on the north side and on the south side where the fishermen of our two countries will know where they are. It is a navigational device as well and it will be readily known where that division lies. I am not arguing at all for the use of that approach on the eastern delimitation because I know that would deprive Canada of a great deal of her present resources.
When the parliamentary secretary makes his contribution to the debate, perhaps he will make some mention of the representations with respect to the Juan de Fuca trench. That is only part of the problem.
I am sure the minister is aware of the problems on the east coast, but I like to feel I am bringing some focus to the problems on the west coast as well. They are completely different, Mr. Speaker. It would not be out of place in the organization of the department to have an assistant deputy minister east coast and an assistant deputy minister west coast. The problems are distinct. Obviously the deputies would have to co-ordinate their activities, but I think this is something that should be considered.
Before the season opened there was a suggestion that a two-licence system be introduced on the west coast whereby a fisherman would have to choose this season whether he would fish inside the gulf or go out on the west coast of the island and fish there. It might even be narrowed down to the zone or the area. That would be followed a year later by a choice of gear. He would have to decide if he was going to be a seiner or a troller. The department decided he could not be both. This suggestion was thrown out to fishermen this year. It had been mentioned a couple of years ago, but the final decision to implement it was suddenly made public only weeks before the fishing season opened. This caused the fishermen, quite rightly, to ask for some other way of drawing up regulations.
In a brief presented to the British Columbia Progressive Conservative party caucus three or four weeks ago in Vancouver by the Fishing Vessel Owners Association of British Columbia, it was suggested that regulations by press release be eliminated. That sounds just like the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker. In this House we deplore the number of occasions when important statements that ought to be made here, where debate can follow, are made by press release or press conference. As we all know, the Prime Minister does not bother to speak in the House; he goes to another legislative chamber to make his statements. This is reflected again in the attitude of the government toward the manner of regulating whatever it is a minister is empowered to regulate. It is regulation by press release.
Fishermen seek an input in licensing and gear equality regulations, or some sort of consultative process which would enable them to express their views and get them across to demonstrate how reasonable are their views. The problems confronting fishermen today have been compounded by permitting licences on the west coast following an edict by the minister's predecessor that there be a reduction in the number of vessels. I do not think there has been a reduction, Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
May 16, 1977
Fisheries
Speaker. There seem to be more vessels fishing now than when the edict came down. What is happening is that the small fishing boats are being bought up and combined into big fishing boats in order to make them a viable proposition, so that instead of three, four or five-ton licences they get a 15-ton licence, and then they have to get a couple of sets of gear. They troll and they seine. This is causing trouble as it is over-capitalizing the industry. The minister has to sit down with the fishermen-not just with his officials on the west coast but with the fishermen-so that they can get their ideas across to him.
The business of area licensing was tossed around as something that was in prospect. Mr. Speaker, it is impractical in view of the nature of the quarry. Fishermen cannot see how they can be confined to a square area of the sea surface for fishing. Fish do no obey those regulations-they just go through them. They come up from the south and go through to the north, or go out sideways, and the fishermen must be free to pursue them, or face a bad season.
Then there is the problem of the sports fishermen. They are up in arms too. In this regulation by press release there was a suggestion that the sports fishermen were going to be licensed and that their catch was going to be reduced. The argument was that at present on the inside passage, where perhaps the major proportion of the sports fishing takes place, sportsmen are taking small fish and taking something in the order of five sevenths of the Chinook taken in that area. This five sevenths notion is being used to blow up the importance of the sports fisherman with respect to the whole Chinook fishery. I think this is an unfair approach to the whole operation. The commercial fishermen recognize this.
The chinook fishery is a large one and is not confined to the inside passage. With three, four, five and six-pounders being caught by sports fishermen, why is it not possible to suggest that a larger hook be used to catch a larger fish? They might not get so many, but a fisherman does not always go out just to catch fish; he goes out to enjoy himself, and if he gets fish that is a bonus. So the sports fishermen are up in arms on the west coast, as well as the commercial fishermen.
When our caucus was out on the west coast another area of sports fishing was brought to our attention, namely, the sports cannery trade. Sportsmen-if that is what they can be called-are flown in from the United States in large numbers, taken aboard a large yacht, then go out with their dorries or nets, catch fish in commercial quantities, cook them on board, put them in boxes, and then return to the United States with their fish already canned. That is not sportsmanlike. It is not sports fishing, and I am sure the minister agrees. There must be some way to control this operation. If sports fishermen had any sport in their blood whatever they would at least cast a line and troll, and then fight for what takes hold of the line. But this business of going in as a commercial venture and leaving with canned fish is a monstrous attack on our resources. I do not know if the minister can say how widespread this practice is; I gather it is of some sizeable proportions. It must be brought to an end.

Another problem besetting fishermen on the west coast is the special advantages available to Indian fishermen. They, I believe, pay only $10 for a licence, whereas a white man pays $2,000. I point out that boats of Indian owners are manned with white men. The Indians fish at a tremendous advantage, paying only $10 for a licence as against $2,000 their competitors must pay. True, native peoples have treaty rights, but surely the purpose of this assistance was to enable them to employ native peoples; it was not intended that they should employ white men hired from union halls.
One could raise other matters of concern. I have not mentioned the salmon enhancement program. I suspect we shall not push forward with the salmon enhancement program until there is a reciprocal agreement. Once such a reciprocal treaty is negotiated, we shall be assured of the benefit of fish spawned in our waters naturally or under the salmon enhancement program. I do not know the present state of this program but suppose it is almost inactive.
I will not deal with the matter of pollution. My colleague who has just resumed his seat I am sure will delve into these questions. Really, the only pollution matter I raise at this time, a matter on which I shall elaborate further on another occasion because I note that my time has almost expired, is the matter of the Kitimat tanker route. I am concerned about the damage which can be done in that area.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Thank you. I am concerned about the damage which can be done in the area if, God help us, it is decided to make Kitimat into a superport.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by applauding the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) for the excellent job he has done these past three years, and for introducing the amending bill before us. I think all hon. members will agree, whether they come from the east coast, Ontario, Quebec, or British Columbia, that the minister has treated all fishermen fairly. He has acted on behalf of fishermen, not on behalf of big fishing companies or moneyed interests. He has shown that he wishes to serve the small fishermen of Canada. For that I applaud the minister, and for introducing this bill and for his good work of the last few years.
I support this bill but give notice of my intention to raise one or two points during the committee stage. I hope hon. members will hasten the progress of the bill to committee, to allow regulations to be brought in as soon as possible. I understand that the B.C. Wildlife Federation have expressed their wish for this bill to be passed as soon as possible. They have indicated to me their full, 100 per cent support of these amendments.
I ask the minister to follow the precedent established last year by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) in allowing regulations to be submitted to members in committee. Let us see the regulations when the bill is in committee. We want to study the regulations at the same time as we study the bill.
May 16, 1977

Perhaps such a course would lead to speedy consideration and passage of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hugh Alan Anderson: As I recall, it was agreed to bring before the committee regulations pertaining to Bill C-83. This was done before the report stage. Unfortunately the session prorogued and the bill was never reported back. I think all committee members would consider it as a sign of the minister's trust and confidence if he were to let us see the regulations. That course, I suggest, would lead to orderly and speedy passage of the bill. The minister is present in the House, and I hope he has noted my supplication. I trust that I am not out of order, Mr. Speaker, in making these comments. To repeat, I commend the minister for bringing in this amending bill. As several members wish to speak, I shall not delay proceedings; however, I must raise one or two points of concern.
I applaud the provision giving fisheries officers the powers of peace officers. I understand fisheries officers will be given all the authority vested normally in peace officers, as set out in the Criminal Code. Such authority is to be used in certain ways. Since I represent a rural riding on Vancouver Island, I clearly understand that a fishery officer often has a difficult time dealing with poachers. If he catches one, he must summon an RCMP officer who issues the warrant, makes the arrest, and so on. Once this bill passes the fisheries officer will, for certain purposes, have all the powers of a peace officer, and for that I commend the minister. I foresee our fishery officers becoming useful instruments for the enforcing of our 200 mile limit.
Allowing fishery officers to act as peace officers in enforcing our fisheries regulations when they monitor the activities of distant water fishing fleets will lead to efficiency in manpower use. For example, consider what might happen if a fisheries officer were to board a Russian trawler operating off the west coast of Canada. He could monitor the size and type of catch and, if the licence issued by the minister has been contravened, he could in his capacity as peace officer issue the warrant, order the ship to enter harbour, or do whatever else is required in the circumstances.
Since he has the power vested in a peace officer, he need not send for the RCMP, or wait for the RCMP helicopter to put a member of that force on board ship. He has in his hands all the necessary power. I hope the minister will not take offence at my saying that there are not enough fisheries officers, at least in my part of the west coast, to do their job adequately.
I realize that the minister's department is under constraint and may not be able to hire enough staff, the work of which is measured in man-years of employment. His allocation of man-years is frozen, as is that of several other departments. But we must appoint more fisheries officers to monitor the area encompassing Thasis, Gold River, Campbell River, and all the other small communities of the region, which is several hundred square miles in area. Without adequate staff it will be impossible to monitor the area adequately and assume those additional responsibilities which fishery officers will have to
Fisheries
bear on the west coast and east coast of Canada. I trust fishery officers will be able to carry out the additional responsibilities with which they are to be entrusted. I add that they do an excellent job in Canada; they are dedicated, sincere people. I would only ask that their job be made a little easier by additional staffing, especially in the field.
Many times we staff our offices in Ottawa, Vancouver, or Saint John, but we do not staff the field, at least not as much as the bureaucracy. I say that with all respect. I feel that sometimes they are the forgotten men of the service. Anything we can do to aid them will be a plus, not only for the government, not only for the monitoring, but for their morale. They are very proud people. They do have a high morale, but we can help them out in that area.
One provision brought in by the minister in his amendment is ticketing for minor offences. This is a very rational move. Up until now, in many cases the fishery officers had to go into court on very petty offences. Our object should be to keep them in the field. They sometimes have to travel 50, 60 or 100 miles from their normal base of operation in order to appear in court, only to find that the person being prosecuted does not appear. That time is wasted.
We now have a provision whereby the fishery officers can issue tickets for minor offences, prescribed by regulations. I hope these regulations are given to us so that the committee members can judge what is a minor offence and what is not. In any event, through this regulation a voluntary plea of guilty can be entered and a prescribed fine sent in by the offender. There is no need for the fishery officer to leave his patrol area in order to appear in court on a very minor issue.
I mentioned in my earlier remarks the matter of poaching. This is a very serious matter which the bill will attempt to remedy. Off the coast of British Columbia, it is estimated that about 5,000 salmon are poached each year.
Salmon in British Columbia is approximately a $200 million industry. Poaching accounts for about $3.5 million. With the modifications in clause 58, I hope that a poacher can not only be fined or sent to jail, but that his equipment can be confiscated. That will add some teeth. Those people who take the salmon as they are going to the creeks and rivers to spawn are a menace to our salmon conservation and should be penalized to the utmost.
I mentioned to the minister in private conversation that those who act as the middleman between the poacher and the consumer should be equally flailed by the law, whether it be by confiscation of their trucks and equipment or by an increased fine. I understand there is a clause in the amendment which increases the fine from $1,000 to $5,000. Perhaps this can be clarified in committee.
The middleman makes the greatest profit, much greater than the poacher. These people should receive substantially increased fines, imprisonment, and confiscation of their equipment, the same as the poacher. I suppose it is analogous to the pusher of marijuana or other drugs and the person who

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
supplies the pusher. It is hard to distinguish which is doing the most damage.
Up until now we have had a maximum fine of $1,000 for the poacher. However, there are documented cases of the poacher being fined $500 even though he sold his catch for $1,000. This proves that in some instances crime does pay.
My biggest concern with regard to the poacher is not that he is illegally catching a fish, but destroying a resource which takes a long time to replenish. A great many of the 500,000 salmon that are caught are caught illegally on the way to the spawning grounds. This means there will not be young salmon returning the following spring.
If this continues year by year, with the salmon being illegally intercepted on their way to spawn, all the dreams of the Minister of Fisheries to enhance the number of salmon and to ensure that our children and grandchildren have the same pleasure and awe of nature in watching the salmon, will be for naught.
Because of greed, in order to make a dollar or $5, people are destroying a living resource unique in this world. The salmon has one of the most unique Canadian identities of any animal, bird or fish in Canada. Natives on the west coast regard it as a supernatural being because of the strength and endurance required by the salmon to reach its spawning ground; leaping over falls and travelling great distances. It is almost a miracle that the fish reaches the spawning ground. We want to ensure that the fish do spawn and that we have a return of the salmon each year.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) mentioned some of the concerns of the west coast fishermen regarding some recent developments. I am not trying to deal only with the west coast, but that is the area I know best.
As the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich mentioned, there is concern about the two licence system. In reply to a question by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall), the minister stated there would be a one year moratorium. The two licence system will not be introduced in 1977. He went on to say that in addition to looking at the two licence system for the inside and outside fishery, he would look at the whole question of licensing. He will look at the dual fishing question, the combination boats, the gill netters and the patrollers, at the whole question of the conversion of one type of gear to another.
One of the great benefits the minister could bring the west coast fishery is something he announced in the maritimes a few months ago. He said he would set up a fishery advisory council. I hope there will be one for each coast, and perhaps one for the freshwater fishermen in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and so on.
On the west coast there are fishermen who are union members, sports fishermen, trollers, gill netters, seiners, and the Native Brotherhood of Fishermen. There is a great deal of gear and a lot of fishing. These fishermen, including the sport fishermen, would appreciate an advisory council so that they
[Mr. Anderson.)
could sit down with members of the minister's department in Vancouver, Nanaimo or wherever to discuss fisheries' policy.
Many fishermen feel the department makes decisions in isolation, and hands down decisions from on high. I realize that is an incorrect assessment. However, in order for the fishermen to feel part of the system there should be consultations every three or four months. The fishermen would feel much better if they knew what was taking place. They would feel they had at least a consultative role in the making of decisions, and I think the hon. gentleman's action would be warmly applauded.
As I began my remarks I stated that the minister was already well thought of by fishermen. My contribution is intended to make him even more popular. I believe the amendments he has brought forward are good for the fishermen and that they will be suported by all hon. members.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-38 will find its proper forum in the standing committee and I, for one, am anxious to see that it gets there. I shall therefore be brief, though there are two things I want to say.
The amendments have been around for a long time, if my information is correct. I join with the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in deploring the length of time it has taken to get thus far. I thought at one time the reason for the delay in first and second reading was that draft amendments were being considered by the various men and women in the provinces upon whom their enactment would have a profound effect. I thought that was the case, because when I was in British Columbia last August the field men who were responsible for the administration of this legislation had the draft amendments in their hands. In my view that was a good reason for the delay. I support that kind of consultation. I am in favour of the people in the field being given an opportunity to consider what the government has in mind. However, visiting the Atlantic provinces not long ago I was disappointed to find that the counterparts of the British Columbia field men had never heard of these amendments. This distressed me.
I do not have to champion the cause of British Columbia or of New Brunswick or of Newfoundland, but it would seem to me that if provincial public servants in British Columbia had the opportunity as long ago as August, 1976, and possibly even before that, to make some input into these amendments, surely their counterparts in all the other provinces concerned should have had an equal opportunity. Thus, when I find that this opportunity may not have been available in all the provinces- I say "may not" because it is possible that my information may be inaccurate-I am somewhat disturbed. Surely, of all pieces of legislation this is one which should be subject to the consultative process since, in many cases, it will be enforced by provincial public servants.
The minister has spoken of a meeting in the first week in June. 1 believe the official name of the group is the Council of Resource and Environment Ministers. The minister, in the
May 16, 1977

course of his opening speech, intimated he had received correspondence from some of his provincial counterparts expressing reservations about portions of this legislation. I understand that he has been urged to put off second reading until the council to which I have referred has had an opportunity to discuss the matter with him at that meeting in June. I do not think this is a terribly important consideration if the minister would agree that the provincial representatives on that council could appear before the committee so that the committee would have the benefit of hearing an expression of the reservations which the minister's provincial counterparts might have in mind.
I understand there are two general groups in the council. There are the representatives of provinces which make use of this legislation as their main anti-pollution law. Then there are others whose provinces have their own legislation, or which operate independently of the Fisheries Act. The real issue here is whether the legislation, either factually or perceptually, encroaches on the area of authority which the provinces have traditionally considered to be theirs in terms of the environment. This certainly appears to be the feeling of a number of the Atlantic provinces, and the same may be the case in British Columbia. This is the issue with which, I fear, we must come to grips.
A great deal of the authority in the areas of water and air pollution control which historically has belonged to the provinces is now, apparently, being assumed by the federal government through the medium of the Fisheries Act. There is no question in my mind that if one reads this bill and gives it a liberal interpretation, the provinces which are concerned about encroachment on their authority have real reason to be concerned. When, for example, one sees words like "water intake", "ditch", "channel" and so on, and when the bill starts talking about municipalities as polluters, or municipalities being creatures of the provinces, I can appreciate provincial concern in this area.
If there is one field in which I do not want to see confrontation between the federal government and the provinces it is that of the environment. It is the one area in which we must work in close concert if our efforts are to be successful, and that is why I hope the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will, at an early meeting, deal with what I consider to be the key issue raised by this bill.
I echo what was said by the hon. member for Comox-Alber-ni (Mr. Anderson). The government has an unhappy record when it comes to legislating by regulation. I hope the committee will have an opportunity to consider the regulations, or at least their intent. I also hope we may hear from officials of the environmental protection service, if they give evidence, as to the manner in which they intend to enforce the regulations.
With respect to poachers, the minister said, virtually, that we had been licensing poachers; instead of preventing poaching, we have said to a potential poacher, "All right, if you want to go ahead and poach, this is what it will cost you if you get caught; it is a cost of doing business, the same as your boat, your flashlight, or whatever else you use."
Fisheries
There is no sense in the members of this House deploring what the. various courts have done when dealing with poachers. We all support the independence of the judiciary. That is surely part of our history of government. We also support the independence of the legislative arm. So if we are unhappy with what has happened with regard to poaching, let us not blame the judges; let us do something about it, but let us not wait from 1970 to 1977 to do something about it.
It was pointed out quite dramatically by my colleague from British Columbia, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that when we had a $500 fine a poacher still made $500 profit because he had $1,000 worth of fish. But let us not blame the judges for that, let us blame ourselves. My colleague from Comox-Alberni says that he does not have enough inspectors in his riding but that he does not blame the minister. Well, I do blame the minister, and his predecessors, and the sins of his predecessors must be suffered by him. If I needed more inspectors in British Columbia, I know where I could get them; I would get them from all the planners in the Department of the Environment, these people whose raison d'etre is to say no. That is all they do, and the reason they say no is that if they said yes they would have no reason to exist.
When somebody in the field in the riding represented by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni has a good project, he has a whole body of guys to whom man-hours are allocated here in Ottawa to say no. If the hon. member wants more inspectors in Comox-Alberni he should blame the minister for not providing them. He should tell him to move them out of planning. We have more planners than we have inspectors, so send them to Comox-Alberni, or wherever it is in the country that we have a shortage of these people.
I wish to make a few comments on the protection of the habitat, the amendments dealing with power to examine and approve plans of government and private sector development. In other words, in Bill C-38 the minister proposes to enter into a field which again I believe many provinces have considered traditionally their domain. Maybe my fears about that will be alleviated in committee. When I hear the minister say that we must have the power to examine and approve these plans, I am not too concerned about that aspect; what 1 am concerned about is that now we have another level of bureaucracy with which public and private developers must deal. I have no worry or concern about a potential development that does not or should not proceed on the basis of its potential damage to the environment. What I worry about is a development that should otherwise proceed but cannot in the face of another level of bureaucracy. This creates a frustration that simply does not permit that municipality or that private company to proceed with a development which otherwise would not be hazardous to the environment.
We all think developers are great, big, huge companies, or great, big, huge municipalities. Many are very small companies or very small municipalities. I say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that at committee stage I will look for some assurance from the Department of Fisheries and the Environ-

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
ment that their concern about protecting the environment is not going to be manifested in the creation of a bureaucracy that would impede otherwise acceptable developments. Small businessmen and small municipalities tell me that their main frustration is having to deal with too many levels of government and, within each level, with too many inspectors, too many forms, too many administrative tribunals. Therefore, when this bill comes to committee-and I hope it will come very soon-I think we should examine that aspect with great care.
With respect to water pollution the minister is, I believe, moving-and likely rightly, although I think we should talk about this to some extent in committee-to the "polluter pay" principle. I think that is what he said in his remarks earlier this afternoon. That is likely a good principle. 1 am concerned with the identification of the polluter. If he is identifiable, then likely the principle that he should pay is a good one. The minister has said, though, that inspectors designated by the department will have more power, and again I worry about those provinces that appoint their inspectors and those that do not. Again we have a division here, two types of provinces dealing differently with this particular part of the Fisheries Act.
With regard to offshore pollution, I think the minister said that 80 per cent of such pollution comes from land. I am not terribly impressed by figures. I ask, 80 per cent of what kind of pollution? How is it measured, and in what areas? If the major source of pollution in Kitimat, for example, comes not from the hazard of moving tankers through an apparently treacherous passage, fine, I agree with the minister we should be more concerned with pollution coming from the landward side. But 1 do not know on what he bases his figure of 80 per cent; I hope that we get into that in committee.
One thing in the minister's remarks which concerned me was his reference to our ineffectiveness to act against polluters as compared to that of the United States. He referred to a special agency. I presume he is referring to the environmental protection agency. I ask the minister to remember that we are comparing apples and oranges. That is an independent agency. If the minister is about to move the environmental protection service out of his department and create an agency out of it, that is a different thing. I think it is not very helpful to compare the U.S. situation with our own when we are dealing in the U.S. with an independent agency and in Canada with a service in the department. I simply point that out gratuitously, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, because I do not think the comparison is particularly helpful in terms of this debate.
In summary, I look forward to this legislation moving into committee, though I am not anxious that it move with haste through committee. We sat around for a good number of years waiting for these amendments. I have a great respect for the integrity of my colleagues who serve on that committee. I think their determination is to have good, viable, enforceable legislation. Therefore I hope the minister looks forward to examination of this bill in some length and in some detail, with the benefit of the expertise of witnesses, particularly those who
[Mr. Jarvis.l
will help us in regard to this federal-provincial conflict which I think is very real.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, before making a few remarks on Bill C-38, I think all hon. members will join me first in extending congratulations to the minister who holds this important portfolio; he is noted for his qualifications, his tenaciousness and his determination to try and help this class of citizens, rich or poor, persevere in the practice of one of the oldest trades in the world; we now call them professional fishermen.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, fishing is regarded as an essential activity which is of prime importance for many reasons. You have only to think that more than 55,000 Canadians depend essentially on fishing for their living and 22,000 are in the fish processing and marketing industries. Furthermore, I think that the annual return of the fishing industry in the economy is over $1 billion; it should be added that exports account for half this figure.
In the Atlantic provinces as in other areas in eastern Quebec, three quarters of the towns and rural areas depend on fishing to a certain extent. It goes without saying that outside of social welfare, allowance, old age security and the like, agriculture and logging, that is the only source of livelihood for the many Canadians and fishermen living in those areas.
Mr. Speaker, I must add that on the west coast fisheries are also very useful but it must be said that the fishing industry there is of relatively little importance to the prosperous economy of British Columbia. On the other hand, on the east coast, of which I am one of the representatives, the situation is different in that fishing, whether we like it or not, is of almost incalculable importance. In fact, that is the part of Canada where the federal government must increase supervision, particularly off the shore of Halifax and St. John's, in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in the North Atlantic, rather than in western coastal waters. One can readily claim, Mr. Speaker, that fishing is not only a way of life or one occupation among others for coastal communities in Canada, but that it is, to my mind, the only means of livelihood, if not the only possible way of life for most of them. In Canada, let us recognize it, our fishing resources are being threatened and it is now more than high time our governments attend to rebuilding our fishing stocks; otherwise, we will find ourselves at some point in time without those invaluable resources.
A quick look at Bill C-38 reveals, Mr. Speaker, that it stipulates that in the future, persons may be designated as fishery officers, as meant by the act, and even classes of persons deemed qualified to act in that capacity.
Those last amendments to the Criminal Code and the one proposed in clause 20 will in effect give fishery officers the powers of peace officers.
Although in general agreement with Bill C-38's provisions, I would like to call the minister's attention to certain discrepancies. It is very well to refer to environment and conservation, but an advertisement campaign would be needed to inform the
May 16, 1977

public at large, from grade school to all spheres of society. It should promote conservation, and above all the love and respect for nature and everything that contributes to the beauty of one's area, province and country.
The time is over when the sea's biological resources were considered inexhaustible. In 1968, 42 per cent of the world's fish stock was caught and for the first time in 1969, there was a reduction in year-to-year world landings. There is no doubt in my view that conservation prompted the government to introduce such a bill, because it is a fact that fishery products, as any other goods, are subject to the law of diminishing returns. For that reason calls have been heard in past years against free deep sea 'fishing, which had been the rule heretofore.
Considering the current situation of Fishery resources, clearly absolute freedom in deep waters is no longer in order, especially since new production techniques have brought a revolution in various traditional forms. We need only remember that the sailor-fisherman used to be the main factor of production. Nowadays, highly sophisticated fishing ships, gear and techniques have come to the fore. It is therefore urgent that the government take regulatory measures to prevent the serious economic dangers now facing us.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has the second longest seacoast in the world. It can even be called the longest, if we also consider the Arctic of course. Moreover, the continental shelf of our country is quite large and includes important resources. It is the second largest in the world and makes up a surface equal to 40 per cent of the territory.
Off the west coast, the continental shelf is rather narrow, I agree, but in the eastern area it extends as far as 400 miles in the Grand Banks area. Its coastal waters contain important fishery reserves, particularly in the Grand Banks to the east of Newfoundland. The latter is no doubt highly essential for the coastal provinces of Canada, both socially and economically. Those are, Mr. Speaker, a few reasons why the federal government should keep on introducing measures to have an ever increasing control over our coastal waters.
It is more and more urgent that the government take serious measures to preserve the stocks and prevent Canadian fishermen from being endangered by those who traditionally fish not far from the Canadian coast and have huge fleets and vessels which, for all practical purposes, take the daily bread away from Canadian fishermen along the east and the west coasts of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that Bill C-38 will meet our wishes and that all those who earn a living from that noble occupation will not have to face disappointment and at last will see better days.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on the bill. I will keep my remarks brief because there are
Fisheries
other people on both sides of this House who want to make comments. It is important to tell the minister, on behalf of the east coast, that we appreciate the measures brought forward in this bill. I want to echo the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), who generally congratulated the minister on the job he is doing in his portfolio. Certainly the people in the east, and particularly in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, are cognizant of the policy measures he has brought forward while he has been the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. That has not gone unnoticed in the province, and we appreciate what the minister is doing in the field of fisheries because more and more the Newfoundland economy must depend on that particular resource.
I am glad to see my member of parliament entering the Chamber because I want to make him aware of the problems on the east coast. These measures to toughen up pollution laws are very important. The fishery in Newfoundland is the backbone of the economy there and will remain so. If we are to protect that renewable resource, then certainly we must bring in measures which are tough enough to deal with the nonrenewable resources as they are transported over that marine habitat. I think it is a good idea to broaden the terms of the bill to include the habitat as well as the fish. Also, the tougher measures on clean-up are certainly a welcome addition to the legislation as it exists at the present time. However, I want to draw attention to two other aspects of the bill which I think are important. One is the amendment with regard to trawler fishing.
There is an inherent conflict between the offshore fishery and the inshore fishery, and keeping seiners and trawlers outside a certain limit gives inshore fishermen breathing space to harvest their share of the resource.
From time to time the minister has given firm commitments to the inshore fishery. This amendment shows that he certainly meant what he said, and I welcome that. There are trawlers which are now interrupting the fishing of inshore fishermen in my area and, I am sure, all over the province and, indeed, throughout eastern Canada. This amendment will certainly help them and will cut down on the conflict between offshore and inshore fishermen.
Another point I want to draw attention to-and my colleague, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni also referred to it-is the amendment which would give fisheries officers the authority of peace officers as set out in the Criminal Code of Canada. Last spring the sealing operation was a topic which did not go unnoticed in the House of Commons or across this country. Unfortunately, much misinformation has been disseminated with regard to that industry, and it is going to be difficult to turn the tide. I think that those journalists who went to St. Anthony this year, who looked, and who bothered to find out the facts, wrote the truth, and I think the tide is now turning in favour of the sealing industry in the province. Newfoundlanders want to earn a living. They must have the

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
income which comes from that particular lucrative hunt to supplement their yearly incomes, and it is entirely necessary that it be kept going. The methods used are the most humane that can be devised.
It is a myth that the seal is in danger of extinction. The quota is well within limits. There is a harvestable quota every year, and certainly there will be one next year as well. Phony conservationists such as Mr. Davies, and other organizations which took part in protesting the seal hunt, are starting to be known for what they are. Bona fide conservationists in this country, people in legitimate humane societies, are showing them up for what they are because these phonies call into question the whole of the humane movement in this country.
On the ice this year a number of people interfered with the seal hunt, and it was impossible to enforce the Criminal Code even though seal pelts were taken from sealers and thrown into the water, and even though clubs were taken and thrown away. In other words, these people were interfering with sealers in the course of carrying out their work, and it was impossible to lay any charges against them. RCMP officers were eventually on the ice, but not when they were really needed, and this amendment to make fisheries officers peace officers will be a step in the right direction in dealing with people who insist on interrupting bona fide fishermen in the course of their work. That certainly is a welcome amendment to my part of the country.
I want to make my own contribution to the Fisheries Act, in conjunction with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall). The hon. member spoke in this debate this afternoon. He referred to the amendment which we will be moving jointly. A petition which we have drawn up is now being circulated in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and already we have thousands of signatures to that petition. I want to put on the record what the petition says, and repeat that when this bill comes before the committee we intend to move a further amendment to the Fisheries Act to incorporate the principle of that petition in that act. The petition is as follows:
THAT greater protection be given through law to sealers by amending the Fisheries Act and regulations.
THAT all ways and means of tightening the Fisheries Act and sealing regulations to give adequate support and protection to sealers be explored.
WHEREFOR it would be an offence for any person in any vehicle or aircraft or boat to come within a defined sealing area without a permit from the Minister of Fisheries, and further that it would be an offence to take or destroy property or otherwise to interfere with a sealer or sealing ship in the course of their working during the sealing season.
That petition is going to be presented to this House very shortly. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, other members of parliament from Newfoundland, and I, have distributed this petition, and we are hoping for thousands of names so that we can let this House know exactly how important this issue is in our province. Thereafter we intend to move an amendment to the Fisheries Act so that next year proper protection can be given to those people in the legitimate pursuit of their livelihood, and so that we can take appropriate action against those phony conservationists who destroy the

reputation of hard working people in a cause which is entirely questionable.
I want to conclude my remarks by congratulating once again the minister for bringing forward these amendments, and to say to him that his efforts have not gone unnoticed by the people on the east coast. They are very grateful for the policy he has brought forward, beginning with the 200-mile limit. Of course there have been other measures which the minister has brought before the House as well.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is very difficult to be anything but repetitive. I regret very much that I find myself in this position. However, there are some characteristics of the comments which have been made which leave room for expansion and for emphasis to be placed upon the distribution of problems throughout Canada as they have existed in the fishing industry.
I am very disappointed that there has not been an adequate force of people available as enforcement officers for the Fishing regulations as they apply to salmon in the fresh waters of New Brunswick. I am sure the minister is aware of the problem which exists. It has been mentioned many times in this House. It has been mentioned by the press of New Brunswick, and it has been very clearly emphasized that it is indeed a cynical and unlawful group which persistently, habitually, and for economic gain poach salmon in the streams of New Brunswick. They have challenged the law enforcement body of the department. They have mocked that body. They have made it impossible for law enforcement to exist.
It was mentioned today that there was a 50 mile portion of stream for one man to look after in Newfoundland. The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe mentioned this. There are many remote streams in many parts of the Atlantic area which are rarely if ever seen as far as supervision of the salmon population is concerned.
In my memory this particular stream abounded with fish. The climax has been long in coming, but evident as it approached. At one time in the Saint John River and the Miramichi River permits were given for nets. They were an integral part of the land grant along those streams, part of the livelihood, the food supply of those who first settled there. The nets were allowed to be put in place on an unlimited basis initially, a regulated basis at a later date, and were removed totally some years ago. Now they are only allowed to net salmon in the Bay of Fundy. The population in the Saint John River has been declining for a long time; it did not receive adequate attention at an early enough date.
I am sure the minister is aware that poaching in the Toiboque River became such a problem that last season the river had to be closed. This was a serious detriment to those people who depended on sports fishing for their livelihood. It is a challenge to the enforcement capability of government. It was found wanting. When the government admits its incapa-
May 16, 1977

bility by closing the stream because it cannot control it, that is indicative of laxity in the administration of existing legislation.
I hope this new legislation will give more strength to the enforcement group and that the minister will find some means to bring things under control. In the control of human society we have found reasons to take extra measures in case of emergency. We find ourselves with respect to the salmon streams of the Atlantic provinces and apparently also in the ocean on the west coast, in a position of emergency. Whatever measures should be taken must be taken. Wherever manpower can be found it must be utilized to put lawless people out of business. They rank with the rustlers of the past.
The salmon enhancement program for the Atlantic area needs additional attention, as was mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). We have not followed the example of other jurisdictions. We impeded the progress of salmon upstream when there were hydro developments in the Atlantic area. When this was done in Scandinavia, spawning grounds were developed, and stream mouths were filled with gravel or whatever was necessary to create the spawning area that had been taken away by virtue of the construction of a dam on the stream. We have not done this. We have actually reduced the number of young salmon being hatched in our federal hatcheries.
There was a time when the hatchery next door to my home produced over a million salmon a year. The count is seriously down relative to the efforts made in the 1920's-not the 1940's, 1950's or 1960's but in the 1920's-to enlarge the salmon population of our streams. We have cut back in this regard. One hatchery has been closed, and the capacity of others has been reduced. The money voted for hatchery operations has been reduced to the point that supervisors are wondering how they will be able to operate their premises even with the reduced number of fish assigned to them. This is indicative of knowing about a problem but not putting any real effort into correcting it.
I want to thank the minister for the position he has taken in respect of the proposed Eastport refinery and the hazards to the environment had an oil refinery been built there. I hope the measures he is prepared to take will prohibit any such construction.
Earlier in the session I mentioned that a modern, up-to-date, and accurate chart of the waters of Head Harbour Passage and the adjoining areas through which the oil tankers would have to pass, is not available. I am happy to learn that a survey is now in progress which will chart those waters and give the department a strong case to present to anybody who might be concerned about construction of the refinery.
One of the problems that has arisen from the restrictive licensing which the department has introduced is that communities on the Atlantic coast find themselves with only one source of livelihood by virtue of their geography, namely, fishing. Licensing has been restrictive, quotas imposed, and the seasons shortened, and these people have found themselves with a declining standard of living.
Fisheries
It had been traditional in the fishing areas of Canada, as it had been in the agricultural areas, that the family of a fisherman might wish to fish, as the family of the farmer in the past had wished to farm. There is no longer any possibility that this can take place. Within the last few weeks I wrote to the minister about the plight of one of these people, asking that he be granted the licence he had requested. By virtue of a change in the boats in the area, particularly the seiners, by the addition of refrigeration, the carriers who used to service the seiners to carry their fish to market were out of a job. A 70-foot boat is a major investment. This man who had one now has nothing for it to do. A lifetime investment is tied up to the dock, and there it will remain.
This is the kind of regulation of the fishing industry about which previous members have spoken. Those working at a desk adjoining a marble corridor in Ottawa have no conception of the social impact of the denial of permission to make a living in the traditional way in which that family has lived for generations. Who in this House would sit quietly while a 70-foot boat rotted out the rest of its life tied up to a pier, because of regulations imposed upon the fishing community? There is a social responsibility on the department to conserve the stocks, but there is also a social responsibility to do it in a way whereby people who have had the habit of fishing those stocks, do not starve.
A number of fishermen along the coast of the Atlantic area have been denied more than one licence, yet for generations they might have fished lobsters in the fall, and fished handline in the summer. They might have worked in three or four of the fisheries in the area. Today, if by any chance they have failed to renew a licence for the fishery in which they had by habit participated, they find they can no longer re-establish themselves. This has created hardship. If they miss the deadline for the renewal of the licence they held-they find they no longer have a licence.
Social consideration is essential. This applies to pollution as well. Many hard remarks have been made about those who have polluted freshwater and salt water, but what some people have failed to recognize is that all the laws of the land perhaps have been adhered to, and it is only as a result of changing laws that we now call pollution, "pollution". It is only with expanding industry that the capability of a particular stream is over-stressed by added pollution.
I was rather impressed by an environmentalist in British Columbia who was a senior member of the department of the environment there. He said dogmatically that, although we are concerned about the environment, we must recognize nature can absorb a certain amount of pollution, and that if pollution is below critical levels, no measurable damage will be done to the environment, or to human beings or animals living in it. He said his department was monitoring the level of certain additives found in the waters of British Columbia. If those additives were within certain limits, the department of the environment in B.C. was not particularly worried. They worried when the level of pollution exceeded the tolerance of the environment, that is to say, the ability of any part of the environment,

May 16, 1977
Fisheries
whether air or water, to absorb the pollution without measurably harmful effects.
We have not recognized the social responsibility shown by some who discharge pollutants into the environment. As the minister mentioned, some industries have traditionally operated at a particular location. The pollution resulting from such operations was within the tolerance limits suggested by that B.C. official as acceptable. The level of pollution was tolerable, until that pollution was supplemented with other pollution coming from some other point within that ecosystem.
Many polluters, be they small communities on river banks or small industrial concerns, have not the financial strength to finance the acquisition of anti-pollution equipment. Therefore the correction of this situation becomes a social responsibility. The more quickly the government recognizes that it must provide money to those who lack the means to install anti-pollution equipment, the more effective its environmental efforts and anti-pollution programs will be. What is more, they will be more acceptable to the general public, for if the government puts its money where its mouth is, so to speak, society will look with a keener eye at the requirements of the department.
As the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) said, the bill we are discussing has, so to speak, ruffled a few feathers in the provincial structure of this country; for that reason it is not timely. We have heard across this nation provincial governments complaining of the federal government's intrusion into their domain. This bill adds to that intrusion. We have in this country a vast duplication of services.
Perhaps, by way of example, I could mention something the mayor of Toronto said some time ago. Discussing a certain program with members of this House, the mayor mentioned a certain federal government program relating to the conduct of the city of Toronto. He said that there were moneys available to the city of Toronto under federal programs. He went on to say that the city of Toronto and its sister municipalities had negotiated with the federal government for several years with respect to the policy about which he was talking, but at the conclusion of seven years no agreement had been finalized in the field of housing.
In this country we find ourselves beset with municipal, provincial, and federal regulations, and it is almost impossible to cut through this maze of red tape. One finds that when one has cleared the hurdle of one department, one must deal with another department which says, "No, you cannot do this." There is no longer a single voice in the federal government which can answer our environmental concerns. The answering voice may be that of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) or of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), or it may be that of the Department of Fisheries. Each may present a separate view and take a different direction. It is awfully difficult to correlate all these views. I wish all these people would sit down at a table and resolve this difficulty.

This bill is an intrusion into provincial rights. I join with the hon. member for Perth-Wilmot in saying, for goodness sake, let us bring all these people together around a table and simplify these procedures as best we can. Let us not intrude further on provincial rights concerning pollution controls. Such intrusion is becoming a habit with the department. Before the present minister was appointed to his portfolio, the provisions of the act which related to pollution in off-shore waters under the jurisdiction of Canadian pollution regulations overlapped the provisions of that act which controlled the environment of the shore. That act, in turn, overlapped the provisions of another act which controlled our land environment. All three acts overlapped, to some extent. Each act was administered separately. Mr. Speaker, we do not want this sort of thing. Let us bring all this pollution legislation under one package. Let us put the provinces in the position of being able to administer. This three or four tier interference with development is not what this country should have to endure.
I come now to the regulations which will be promulgated under this legislation. First, let me speak of a regulation of which I am sure the minister is unaware and the reason for which nobody has bothered to explain, which created great hardship. Those familiar with the fishery know that a fisherman is allowed to cure his own fish. He may put the fish in salt, or in brine, or smoke it, and so on; or, he must sell the fish to somebody else who will market it, cure it, or otherwise deal with it. Mr. Speaker, the minister has been most attentive today; perhaps he will pay close attention to what I am about to say.
Does the minister know that if I were a fisherman and filled my boat in one day with fish, I would not be permitted to hire help for cleaning and scaling that fish for treatment? I am not allowed, Sir, to hire help for cleaning and scaling that fish. Did the minister know this? Speaking of regulations, I wonder if the minister is aware of another regulation to which I shall now allude.
Not long ago an inspector of his department entered a processing plant of smallish size which was processing salt fish. The height of the ceiling over the tanks in which the fish were held was less than eight feet. The plant owner or manager was advised that he could clean his tanks but could not load them again until the height of the ceiling had been raised at least to eight feet. I made inquiries. The bacteria count was not the trouble; there was nothing about the fish to make it hazardous for human consumption. Apparently the inspector was about six foot six tall and had bumped his head on the ceiling. I can see no other explanation for his wanting the ceiling higher off the ground. Certainly ceiling height over the tanks had little to do with fish being soaked in brine. Apparently the inspector had invoked some regulatory authority. I cite this example, because this bill will provide officials with even greater regulatory powers.
Quite possibly the minister might not be aware of all the regulations. I suggest, in the case of this bill, that perhaps a codicil should be added. Any regulations made under this bill should be placed before the fisheries committee of the House
May 16, 1977

of Commons for consideration and discussion before they descend with any hardship upon those who would be regulated. This would gain some publicity. I can assure hon. members that the little guy on the coast does not read the Canada Gazette which makes this official. He is only made aware of this by somebody dropping in to tell him that he is breaking regulation ZYX which was passed the day before yesterday, and something should be done about it.
All those who have spoken have made an important contribution. I am sure those who are interested in the fishing industry along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts will read with considerable interest the remarks of the minister, of the hon. member for South Shore, and of members from British Columbia and Newfoundland. I hope the minister will not only take careful note of those remarks but will go one step further.
The minister's predecessor created a precedent by permitting groups to come before him and the fisheries committee to present their problems and make recommendations. Those committee meetings at which organizations from British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland appeared were some of the most interesting and informative meetings that have been held under the jurisdiction of the minister in the five years it has been my privilege to be here.
Those meetings should become habit. It would benefit the direction of research, the minister, and the fishermen. It would create a better feeling between the fisherman and the minister and his officials. It would be a good will gesture to make this an annual event.
Various agricultural organizations appear before the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and his departmental officials on a regular basis, sometimes more than once a year. Why not the various fishing associations? I do not mean the industrialists who process, but the people from the shore. Why not permit them to appear before the minister so that he can understand the problems as they arise for them from day to day and year to year? We know they cannot all be resolved at once.
I hope the minister will do these two things: first, before applying the regulations place them before the committee and, second, on an annual basis have liaison with the people in the boats by allowing their delegations to appear before him and a committee of the House of Commons to consider the problems as they arise.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I am a man of few words. I appreciate the opportunity to speak in a debate on Bill C-38.
I have just returned from Williams Lake, British Columbia, in the heart of my constituency, where the British Columbia Wildlife Association held its 1977 convention. One of the key matters being discussed was Bill C-38. After three hectic days, they learned of the possibility of this bill being brought before the House. I assured them that my colleagues on both sides of
Fisheries
the House would get this most important bill through the House and into committee.
I welcome the few minutes available to me to make that point. I wish to point out in particular that the British Columbia Wildlife Association were most emphatic that all British Columbia members should realize that this bill must get into committee as soon as possible. I sincerely hope it will be put to a vote this evening.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.

May 16, 1977
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Following the outburst of the government House leader during the course of today's question period, I just want to observe that parliament can work, particularly in his absence.


Ralph Goodale: Unfair.


Mr. MacFarlane:: That's rude.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You say what you like and we'll say what we like.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has the floor.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to suggest it was because of his absence that it worked. I just point out that it worked in his absence. I say very directly that an examination of the legislative program since Christmas will indicate that this parliament has dealt fairly and fully with legislation, and did so rather quickly. I was somewhat distressed at his outburst today during the course of the question period.
What I rose to do was to ask the parliamentary secretary whether we would be dealing with the Customs Tariff (C-55), the Excise Tax Act (C-54), and the Bretton Woods Agreements Act (C-18) in that order as announced for tomorrow.


Ralph Goodale: My understanding at the moment is that the order of business for tomorrow is as the hon. member has described it. If there is any change, he and the other House leaders will be informed at the earliest opportunity.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. To enable the House to proceed more quickly, 1 think it would not be asking the government leader too much to inform us as soon as possible-this evening would be best- of the matters that the government intends to introduce tomorrow because it is extremely important for the members to be informed of the intentions of the government more than one hour in advance.
We have given the proof of our co-operation today. We were informed last week that Bill C-38 would be debated today and we prepared ourselves accordingly. We can co-operate and the proof was given tonight. If the government could co-operate with us by informing us a few hours in advance of its intentions to discuss such or such a bill in the House, we could proceed more quickly and the government would have no cause to complain that legislation is sometimes delayed. That is not our fault.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to support this point of order and to request in all sincerity and all good faith that the government keep us informed of the business it will introduce the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner).]
following day so that we may proceed with some efficiency in the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that he has made his point.


Ralph Goodale: 1 do not intend to take up much time in replying to the point which has been made, but I think I should say that in the negotiations which go on among the House leaders every effort is made to give as much information concerning the business of the House as possible so that hon. members can prepare themselves. On Thursday of last week, following the question period, the acting government House leader gave a rather lengthy list of business with which we hoped to proceed in an orderly way throughout the course of the present week. So far, we are right on schedule with that order of business announced last Thursday, as I indicated in my answer to the House leader for the official opposition. We are making good progress, and I hope it continues.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, the debate tonight arises out of the unsatisfactory answer given to a question put by myself to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on March 16 as it appears in Hansard at page 4029. On that day I asked the Prime Minister the following:
As we now, unfortunately, live with an unemployment figure of one million, would the Prime Minister tell us whether any steps have been taken at least to evolve an industrial strategy for Canada to ensure that in the coming years this chronic type of unemployment will not continue?
The Prime Minister startled the House by replying:
The House has heard on different occasions statements on elements of our industrial strategy by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I think one of the reasons the country is in difficulty is that Canadians are living beyond their means.
I would point out that this is a typical response of the Prime Minister and that it demonstrates the total lack of understanding he has concerning the economic morass into which the country has slumped.
If we are to look at the single, most important reason why we have regional divisions in the country, yes, even the belief in certain areas of the country that separatism would be better than remaining within Confederation, we should look first and foremost to the economic condition that the government has
May 16, 1977

allowed the country to get into. This was borne out, I point out, by the Toronto Star survey which appeared last Saturday which outlined the fact that in Quebec, for example, the number one concern is not what the Prime Minister has misrepresented it to be. The number one concern in Quebec is the economic condition of that country and the fact that people are going without jobs in that country. I say that is due to the lack of an industrial strategy on the part of this government.
That is the essence of the question. If we accept the fact that we do have an unsatisfactory economic situation in Canada today, then what is the government going to do in the next few years to develop an industrial strategy which will ensure that we will get out of the present morass? There is nothing new about this question, Mr. Speaker. For example, in September, 1970, the Economic Council of Canada, in a booklet entitled "Performance and Potential", dealing with the period from mid-1950 to mid-1970, outlined to the government, chapter by chapter, what it should do to ensure that our economy would not slip as it has. At page 76 of the report the following statement appears:
We feel strongly that there should be an accelerated movement towards the evolving practice of planning further ahead-say, over five-year periods-by governments, business and other groups, and jointly with other countries in international organizations.
At page 79 of the report it is stated:
It is becoming almost trite to suggest that there continues to be a requirement in Canada for greater co-ordination of policies-within governments, between governments, and between the public and private sectors.
I am simply saying that it is the government's failure to adopt this economic course which has led to the feeling of disintegration which exists in this country. In short, many people in the country are saying, "We have had enough; we want out". I think it is time the government countenanced that it has the heaviest responsibility of any body in this country for the state we are in.
Dealing again with the report of the Economic Council of Canada, at page 84 the council states:
A major concern of this report is that the Canadian economy has fallen significantly below its potential. A quick return to potential is not feasible. But the central challenge is to begin to close the gap between actual and potential performance as soon as possible-to begin to reduce the significant human and economic costs of high unemployment-bearing in mind the need to maintain reasonable stability of prices. It is important to recognize that the present degree of slack, reflected partly in high unemployment, will tend to persist and grow until an annual rate of real growth in excess of 5 per cent is resumed.
Unfortunately conditions have deteriorated since 1970. Here are the facts, Mr. Speaker. Since 1970 we have had 65 per cent inflation. Unemployment has jumped from below 5 per cent to the present 8.3 per cent, with one million people out of work. In 1970 we had a budgetary surplus of $392 million. This year it is projected that we will have a budgetary deficit-I emphasize deficit-of $7.2 billion. Even that deficit of $7.2 billion was not understood by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) until he went to a committee of this House and was told by his officials that in truth he had in his budget speech outlined a $7.2 billion deficit.
Adjournment Debate
Our current account trade deficit has gone from a surplus in 1970 of $1.1 billion to a deficit of $4.9 billion in each of the last two years, and of course, as we know, real growth in the country has continued to slump. That is why I once again put to the Prime Minister the question: what is the Prime Minister going to offer this country in the form of an indusrial strategy to ensure that, at least by the mid-1980's, we are not in a still worse position than we are in today?
As we all know, we have been borrowing heavily, both externally and in the domestic market, to cover deficits run up by governments in Canada. When I asked the Minister of Finance on May 3 in the committee when he saw us getting a balanced budget, he replied: "I don't know that I could project an early date for that".
Then he added:
... I do not anticipate it will be easy to get that deficit down very quickly.
In short, if there were a proper industrial strategy and if there were proper direction from the federal government, I can assure you we could return to a sounder economic base, with relatively low unemployment and relatively low inflation. Nothing would ensure the continuation of Confederation and the death of separatism in this country more quickly than to give people the real growth they are entitled to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) in such form.
I am sorry to see his form is carried away by his rhetoric when he said, at least once in his speech, that separatism is better than staying and fighting within Canada for our economic order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Not true.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: He said separatism is better, and I heard him say separatism is better.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We heard you say that Cape Breton is part of Prince Edward Island.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: This is a man who put himself forward in his campaign as being the leader of his party. He went on to say in his destructive speech-and there was nothing constructive offered whatever-that those people of Quebec, those people "in that country"-


Ralph Goodale: Those were his words.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, those are his words. He said, "in that country". A man who would say separatism is better, and those people in that country would have some economic means which may be better than living within Canada and fighting for our better economic well-being-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 16, 1977
Adjournment Debate


Fabian Hugh Poulin: This man has been designated by his party as being their chief financial critic. For this man to say those words in this House, during the late show and at the time of adjournment, is a shameful thing to suggest in the parliament of this country. It is shameful to suggest that "in that country" they may be economically better to go their own way. I hope I never hear it again. I hope I never hear that kind of statement made.
All of us in this parliament are going to be united in an attempt to find better economic ways and means. The hon. member for York-Simcoe would have us believe that this is a phenomenon that is particular only to Canada, not knowing the world is suffering from these same kinds of conditions. We are working hard and accomplishing much. We are not going to accomplish anything by suggesting separatism may be better under any circumstance for any people in any part of this country. I think it is a wrong thing, Mr. Speaker, to have that in any part of a speech from a parliamentarian.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That was not said, and you know it.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The main thrust of our economic policy in this country, through wage and price controls, is to bring under some semblance of order, rapid inflation.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You caused the inflation.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: The program is beginning to work. We hear screams from the other side because they are sorry it is beginning to work. Finally the wheels are beginning to hold and we are making some progress.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Where have you been?


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Rapid increases in wages and prices in this country have been one of the most destructive things to our economic growth. We all know that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary. His allotted time has expired.


CONFEDERATION-POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING THIRD ORGANIZATION CONCERNED WITH UNITY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, thank you for interrupting the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Poulin). I want to address myself to a response I received from the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the Acting Prime Minister, last Friday, with respect to the establishment of a third bureaucracy in regard to the whole issue of national unity.
The remarks of my distinguished colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens), are very appropriate about some of the underlying causes of the feeling of separation in the province of Quebec. The gross failure of the government to deal with some of the fundamental economic issues in this country, and particularly in the area of Quebec,

have been brought to our attention very, very vividly by the latest Toronto Star poll. Notwithstanding the rhetoric we hear from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others in the government, the fact of the matter is that the underlying feeling in the province of Quebec is that they are not receiving a fair and reasonable deal under this particular government.
Considerable speculation has arisen from statements made by the Prime Minister himself in his press conference with respect to the role and function of Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin in a national unity commission. The Prime Minister referred to the possibility of Mr. Pepin fulfilling a function in some new type of national unity commission. It is to be a high profile commission. The Acting Prime Minister was unaware of any possible appointment, so I assumed from that there is absolutely no danger that there will be any further bureaucracy brought into play with respect to this particular commission. If that is the case, and if the parliamentary secretary can confirm that there is not another commission being contemplated by the government, then in a sense that is a very welcome announcement, because the Prime Minister has been creating new bureaucracies with respect to the question of national unity at breakneck speed.
I suggest that bureaucracies are substitutes for constructive proposals. An attempt is being made to submerge the whole debate into a number of agencies and sub-agencies studying the effects and consequences of separation of the province of Quebec from Canada. I suggest that this is not a matter of priority to the government, and I have been urging the Prime Minister to give us some positive, constructive proposals with respect to the problem, rather than indulging in rhetoric from one part of the country to the other. 1 pointed this out on an earlier occasion, but the Prime Minister has not yet made any speech on the matter of national unity in the House of Commons.
I suggest that this is the place for the Prime Minister to debate, with other elected representatives from across Canada, his proposals, if he has any, to keep the country together. I suggest that he should not be creating new bureaucracies every time he opens his mouth in an effort to recycle Jean-Luc Pepin, a defeated Liberal cabinet minister, who is all of a sudden to be elevated to the capacity of giving leadership, when we know he will be nothing more than an adjunct to the Liberal Party of Canada. I think it is disgraceful for the Prime Minister, at a time of great difficulty in our country, to contemplate bringing forward a defeated Liberal cabinet minister and to give him a function as an adjunct to the Prime Minister's office, a high profile function, at the expense of the Canadian people. We know Mr. Pepin is nothing more than a political arm of the Prime Minister and of the Liberal party.
There have been no definitions of the roles of the bureaucracies which have been created. What does the federal-provincial relations office do? On Friday we referred to a speech by Mr. Gordon Robertson who, during the life of this government under our present Prime Minister, has been in charge of the federal-provincial relations office. I got the impression that in the speech he made last week there was an attempt to get back
May 16, 1977

into the dialogue, yet the content of his speech was rejected and repudiated by the Acting Prime Minister, who said Mr. Robertson did not state government policy in anything he said in those remarks. This man is clearly involved with federal-provincial relations. Apparently he has been in charge of that whole process for the last six or seven years. Now apparently he is being phased out by the creation of the Tellier bureaucracy within the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council office, which is involved in the development of policies and studies with respect to Quebec, and now we hear that there is a possibility of a new national unity commission.
I was amused at a Canadian Press interview with Mr. Pepin which was reported in part in the Ottawa Citizen of April 30, 1977, as follows:
"Too many people think that to work for national unity you have to specialize in constitutional law."
The position as head of a high-profile national unity commission has been the one most often linked to him in recent days. But he confesses the idea worries him somewhat.
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen of April 30 John Gray writes that Mr. Pepin said the Prime Minister wanted him to do for national unity much the same job as he has done at the Anti-Inflation Board for the fight against inflation. I can only suggest that if that is the case we are in serious difficulty indeed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I am rather intrigued by the newly discovered interest of my hon. friend and his Conservative colleagues in national unity. Their sudden recognition of the significance of issues affecting Confederation and Canadian unity is revealing in its timing. It smacks more of expediency than substance or conviction.
I am also intrigued by the new role my hon. friend has assumed in recent months in the House of Commons. I did not notice this role in his early days in the Chamber when he and I were freshmen here. The role he has assumed in recent weeks is reflected to a certain extent in his remarks tonight and on other occasions. I seems to be that of a hatchetman, either with respect to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or Mr. Pepin, or whomsoever is under discussion at any given moment. It used to be that he could be counted upon for positive and constructive contributions, but unfortunately that seems to be lacking recently.
With respect to the specific point raised during question period last Friday and repeated tonight, it should be emphasized that the notion of a so-called "third unity organization or bureaucracy" is a product of the hon. member's own question, or perhaps some misinterpretation that may have been reported in the press. There is nothing that I can find in Hansard to indicate that that is a government suggestion. Neither is there anything to be found in the transcript of the Prime Minister's news conference of April 28 to substantiate the point alleged
Adjournment Debate
tonight. During that news conference Mr. Pepin's position was discussed.
The Prime Minister indicated that Mr. Pepin is a distinguished Canadian who has made a tremendous contribution to the country for many years in many ways. It is obvious that the government, the Prime Minister, and I think Canadians generally, would value his continued participation in the federal arena. As the Prime Minister has indicated, some discussions have taken place, but there are no conclusions to report yet. I, for one, hope that Mr. Pepin will continue doing what he has done so well for so many years, that is, to keep on working very hard for Canada.


ENERGY-PROPOSED UPGRADING FACILITY FOR HEAVY OIL AT LLOYDMINSTER-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON FEASIBILITY REPORT
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in rising this evening is to obtain some elaboration on the question I posed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on April 28 with respect to questions about the announcement of a consortium of 20 major oil companies to engage in the establishment of an upgrading facility for heavy oil in the Lloydminster region and the fact that an initial feasibility study had been submitted to the minister for consideration.
My purpose in questioning the minister on April 28 was to determine if his officials had an opportunity to examine the feasibility study and to report to the House what action the federal government has taken. In my view the minister was vague in his answer.
On May 9 a CP news story in the Edmonton Journal advised that new oil sands tax incentives were coming. It reported that the oil industry may soon get a look at new proposals for provincial and federal government royalties and taxes for oil sands. The news story said that the minister had made this remark in addressing the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
My purpose in posing the question was to try to ascertain what action had been taken. The minister somewhat deviated from the question by talking about a tar sands plant in the Fort McMurray region, and did not deal with the question of the heavy oil upgrading facility in any detail. As interested Canadians we are all concerned about the challenge of meeting our energy requirements. Day in and day out we see a greater importance placed upon the reserves and the heavy oil deposits in the Lloydminster region, and in the Wainwright and Kinsella areas of Alberta. The Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, April 27, said in a headline, "Up to 16 billion barrels buried in Canadian fields. Lloydminster's vast belt of heavy crude may help to solve our energy problems." The article reads in part:
The heavy-oil deposits could make a significant contribution to Canada's energy requirements in future, but technological and marketing problems must be overcome,
A recent federal report... says the Lloydminster-type heavy oils are possibly Canada's best hope for expanding oil production in the next 10 to 15 years.

May 16, 1977
Adjournment Debate
A headline in the Edmonton Journal of March 5, 1977, speaks of Lloydminster oil as being a key target. According to the article a heavy oil plant is being proposed. A tremendous amount of interest is being shown in this resource. I think the minister has failed to give a clear answer to the proposal advanced by the consortium of 20 companies for the establishment of a heavy oil upgrading facility. The proposal was submitted to the minister on January 31, 1977. Time is running out, Mr. Speaker. If this facility is to be in place by 1980, we need to know the ground rules, and some important issues ought to have been clarified by the end of the first quarter of 1977. That first quarter is behind us, and time marches on.
I point out that we are considering an important question. We cannot use this particular resource unless it is upgraded. The producers have indicated their interest and desire to spend risk capital on developing this important resource. They propose to establish a 100,000-barrels-a-day oil upgrading facility, modular in design to allow for future expansion. It is estimated that the facility will cost between $500 million and $700 million. It will be located in that particular area; the Hardisty terminal is close by. Further, there is every assurance that the current supply of 100,000 barrels per day of crude is available for the establishment of a viable and feasible facility.
The resources are there. We need the energy, but the major obstacle is that under existing royalty and tax structures, the project is not economically feasible, which means it is not feasible unless there is some modification. That point is the gist of the feasibility study which has been presented to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Basically, it contains two provisions. First, the government of Alberta will have to permit a processing allowance similar to that available with respect to natural gas, to be deducted from the value of the upgraded product. Second, the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta should jointly agree upon an increased capital cost allowance for the project. This is vital, since only with such a measure can the original investment and interest be paid back within seven or eight years after start up, this pay-back period being the condition to be agreed to before the project can be financed.
One may ask, what will be the ultimate cost to the taxpayers of Canada? If all the 100,000 barrels a day of heavy oil feedstock could be marketed without upgrading, the loss in taxes and royalties due to modifications made for the upgrading facility would be in the order of $546 million for Alberta and $399 million for the federal government, over 20 years. However, the proposed 100,000 barrels a day of heavy oil cannot be marketed without upgrading. In fact, more of the supply which would be directed to the upgrading facility would be diverted from other use, the result being not a loss in royalties and taxes, but a substantial gain-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member whose allotted time has expired.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the presentation of the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) and the fact that he did not make reference to the Quebec situation. Out of three opposition speakers on the "Late Show", he is the only one who did not mention the situation in Quebec. That is not my favourite subject. I am not obsessed by the situation in Quebec. I have not panicked yet, and I won't. I have heard so many experts on the Quebec situation in the past few days that I do not know if I am qualified to speak about it. In fact, I only reside in Quebec two or three days a week.
The province of Saskatchewan has important heavy oil resources. Currently, heavy crude petroleum represents about 70 per cent of the province's current productive capacity. Heavy crudes have been difficult to market in the past, hence the current interest in upgrading activity which would improve the marketability of the province's oil resources.
Upgrading heavy crudes removes the two main undesirable characteristics, namely, the low gravity and high sulphur. Once this is done the oil will be able to gain wider access to the domestic market. The present reliance on the seasonal demand of the asphalt market will be removed. Canadians will be provided with an additional source of crude supply to help meet the goal of self-reliance.
With these objectives and advantages in mind, there are at present at least two proposals for upgrading operations. Pacific Petroleums, with its partners, has proposed a 100,000 barrel a day facility to be located at Hardisty, Alberta. Husky Oil Limited has proposed a 50,000 barrel a day facility to be located at Lloydminster. Both proposals are in preliminary stages of discussion and examination of projected economics. Other proposals have also been raised. Preliminary economic evaluation work indicates that the economics are marginal at best based on current pricing. The cost estimates for a facility are in the order of hundreds of millions of dollars with no certainty in the present upgrading technology. Consequently the undertaking of an upgrading facility by either industry or government carries a considerable degree of risk.
The government is pleased with the initiative being taken by the various companies which are pursuing the upgrading option for development of our heavy crude oil resources. Officials are keeping in close touch with the companies on the various problems associated with this resource development. There are important questions of technology and crude oil price differentials involved, as well as fiscal arrangements, both federal and provincial, to be worked out for these multimillion dollar projects.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.35 p.m.

Tuesday, May 17, 1977