1978-05-11

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday I moved a motion to express the profound support which exists in this House for the State of Israel. Unfortunately, the government saw fit not to allow the motion to be presented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise again today because I believe members of this House want, and deserve, the opportunity to express the support which I believe exists on both sides. I therefore hope the government House leader will not deny unanimous consent. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grenviile-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the House reaffirms the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace with its neighbours, and further reaffirms the right of Israel and its neighbours to secure and recognized borders in accordance with Security Council Resolution 242 and consistent with the need of all the peoples of the Middle East for a just and lasting peace.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: We accept this motion, Mr. Speaker. It is acceptable because of the amendments suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be put only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, for different, but equally cogent reasons I am sure the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) will rise to indicate the support of the government for the following motion. Considering that the first constitutional responsibility of the Prime Minister in our system of government is to the House of
Commons duly elected by the people of Canada, and considering that the Prime Minister has indicated that he will announce whether or not there will be a general election for this summer by the end of this week, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to meet his responsibility by announcing his decision on this fundamentally important matter by making a statement today in the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the startling statements made recently by Senator Marchand at the Richelieu Club of the Outaouais, namely that he no longer has any confidence in the Canadian constitution which the authorities have constantly and gleefully violated, witness the various federal interventions in exclusively provincial areas, especially since 1927 with old age security pensions, family allowances and so on after having taken over the best provincial taxation fields.
Considering that the British North America Act never did create a country and that 90 per cent of French Canadians were convinced of the fact since we have always considered the act as a royal order of Her Majesty to her colony, Canada, and finally that the senator-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a motion, would he introduce it now?


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-and finally that the senator states that he agrees 98 per cent with the "inde-pendentist" idea.
5306

May 11, 1978
5.0.	43
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House instruct that a special debate be held as soon as possible to stir genuine interest among Canadians in the organization of a provincial meeting to draw up a constitution specifying the duties of the federal government in order to create the harmony which we advocate.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the fact that many fertilizer dealers in Manitoba are out of fertilizer, or very nearly so, because of the almost total lack of railway cars to carry this product from its source to the dealer. If this situation continues, it could spell disaster not only for the dealers but for their farmer customers. The supply of fertilizer in Manitoba for the critical spring period can only be described as desperate. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Stewart):
That the Minister of Transport use all the power and persuasion he can muster to ensure that by this weekend a sufficient number of railway cars will be directed to the hauling of fertilizer, and that these cars will continue hauling fertilizer for the balance of the spring seeding period.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of this motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that it has been reported that the Canadian GATT negotiators in Geneva have been instructed to downplay the shipbuilding industry in Canada, in other words, to sacrifice this important industry to obtain trading concessions from other countries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Mus-koka (Mr. Darling):
That the government issue immediate instructions to its negotiators to countermand any such instructions so that the 45,000 direct and related jobs which depend on the shipbuilding industry will not be jeopardized.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ELECTIONS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my motion is under Standing Order 43: it is a variation of the motion already proposed by my leader. I move:
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to ask the Governor General of Canada forthwith for a dissolution for the purpose of an election at the earliest possible moment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning recently revealed information that a self-admitted Rhodesian terrorist, John Conradie, known as "Bomber John", is in Canada on a ministerial permit. In his recent statement to the press, he said, among other things, "We should have blown up one or two of the department stores... I thought we should have tried to destroy as much property as possible". I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration make public all details of the case, specifically including whether the government will cancel Mr. Conra-die's work permit and expel him, all reasons justifying the presence of this man in Canada and, finally, whether the government plans stricter admission requirements to prohibit entry of such persons as John Conradie, General Quang and other such undesirables.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for discussion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

May 11, 1978


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) has on two occasions publicly rejected the proposal of a Kootenay River diversion under the Columbia River Treaty, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen):
That the minister use his heavy influence in the cabinet to obtain the support of the cabinet for rejecting the B.C. Hydro proposal of a Kootenay River diversion and that this position be transmitted forthwith to the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who indicated last week that he would announce his decision on an election by the end of this week. I wonder if the Prime Minister can tell this House of Commons whether he proposes to ask the Governor General to dissolve parliament this week and, if he does not, can he tell us when he will announce significant, new economic measures to deal with the serious economic problems facing the country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been apparent in the House that we are all concerned with the issues with which the Canadian people are concerned, and they want solutions to these problems at this time. The question arises as to whether these issues can best be dealt with during a general election, or by continuing the work in the House. I have reached the conclusion, because, I must say, of the co-operation of hon. members opposite and their anxiety to get on with the work, that we should stay in this House and deal with these issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to have that question resolved, Mr. Speaker. I would remind the Prime Minister that he has only a little more than a year to go before he has to face that decision. I think the people of Canada would have preferred to
Oral Questions
have an election. But if the Prime Minister is serious about having the House of Commons deal with important legislation,
I wonder if he will tell us when he intends to introduce a new package of economic messures, and particularly when he intends to put before the House of Commons the government's proposed changes to the Bank Act.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is on the same wavelength as I am when he is talking about another year of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Your last hurrah.


An hon. Member:: You're on a short-circuit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Having lived through a spate of speculation last fall and another one this spring, I hope we will not hear any more about elections in the way of speculation until some time around March or April of next year. In the meantime, the Leader of the Opposition is quite justified in wanting to see the House get on with certain measures. I can assure him that our purpose in staying here is to proceed with various measures. I do not take it that the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting another budget, but other types of economic measures. I can assure him that they will be forthcoming and we will expect co-operation from both sides of the House. I am sure that both sides of the House are particularly pleased with the fact that the Canadian dollar seems to be strengthening a bit-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and, as the minister said the other day, that we are setting new records in export trade. I would not expect the dollar to be the subject of speculation. I am very happy to see that in the last few days we have not had any questions on this subject from the opposite side.


Charles Joseph Clark: I am pleased to have the general assurance that there will be some specific legislation brought before the House of Commons. I wonder if the Prime Minister would bring himself to be a little more specific and indicate when we will have the Bank Act before the House, when we will have the legislation he has promised to aid small business in the country, and when we can expect to have before the House of Commons in bill form other legislation which the government proposes to deal with the very serious economic problems the country is facing.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I appreciate the hon. member's concern. On the order paper now there are various measures which we hope the House will be dealing with, and I can assure him we will be giving first reading to other measures next week and in the weeks to come.


DATE OF BY-ELECTIONS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has ended the speculation with respect to a
80038-46%

May 11, 1978
Oral Questions
general election, but there remains in the country the problem of a large number of Canadians, about 1,300,000, who are unrepresented in this parliament because there are 15 vacancies for various reasons. Given the situation with respect to that lack of representation, is the Prime Minister in a position today to announce when the by-elections will be held to fill the balance of seats for which by-election dates have not been announced? If he is not in a position to do it today, will he be able to do it tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate, as the hon. member does, that members from both sides of the House, but I think in greater number from the Tory side, have indicated that they will not be running again and have either gone on to other things or will be going on to other things.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: That is irrelevant.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is your problem, David?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: You.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Egmont is anxious to get on this gravy train, as I think he calls it. We will be taking names as soon as we adjourn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is an interesting commentary on the Prime Minister's view on representation in this House to have him make jokes about this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shameful arrogance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I wonder if he is prepared to answer another question which has caused concern among some people who have declared themselves candidates for office in the House of Commons. These are public servants who have obtained leave under section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act.
In a telephone conversation with me, Mr. Gallant, the chairman of the Public Service Commission, indicated that he had spoken to representatives of the Prime Minister's party and said that these people cannot have a second leave as a result of the failure to call an election today, and the delay. Therefore, without statutory change, this can deprive some of them or put an onerous burden on some of them in the Prime Minister's party and mine in standing for parliament. Aside from the question of other candidates, has the government any specific plans to deal in a special manner with those who are inconvenienced in that particular way in standing for parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, regarding the preamble to the question of the hon. member, 1 must point out to him that I was dealing seriously with this question when his seatmate, the hon. member for Egmont, interrupted me and did not seem to want a serious answer. Therefore, it is not this side which is not dealing with this matter seriously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In so far as the substance of the question is concerned, perhaps because of the hon. member's circumscription he is making a special plea for public servants. He realizes that many citizens of this country will run for various parties and have declared themselves with some consequence, I imagine, for their present situation. I am not sure how the hon. member proposes to deal with all the people who were erroneously going on the speculation that there might be an election and now find there is not one.
If the hon. member is prepared to suggest some solution for this short of changing the constitution and having elections at a fixed date, then I think I will be prepared to hear it. I cannot see any way in which we can anticipate for all people who might have thought there would be a general election and have either put some money on it or put their jobs on the line and have lost their wagers.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the edification of the Prime Minister, I say, with respect, that the chairman of the Public Service Commission has suggested a review of section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. That is one thing which might be proposed or considered by the government. I offer that to the Prime Minister as a suggestion.
The Prime Minister did not answer the first question I put to him in respect of an announcement of the dates of the by-elections for the seats which are vacant now and for which by-elections have not been announced. When does the Prime Minister intend to do that? Can he do that today, or can he do it tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will take this question into consideration and that I will act within the framework of the law.


INQUIRY AS TO FALL ELECTION
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Edward Broad bent (Oshawa-Whitby): Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, having decided that history will not unfold as it should if we had an election now, I would like him to clarify-
Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: The Prime Minister will be pleased to note the relief of all his backbenchers with his decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
May 11, 1978


John Edward Broadbent: In all seriousness, would the Prime Minister clarify one part of his answer to the Leader of the Opposition, when he made reference to next March? Is the Prime Minister now saying to the members of the House and to the people of Canada that they cannot anticipate, under any circumstances, a fall election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, once again, referring to the preamble of the hon. member's question, I must say that I noticed particular relief on his face when I announced there would not be an election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And I am quite sure I saw some of his members get off their knees and wipe their brow, Mr. Speaker. I am not, of course, referring to the hon. member for Greenwood who was urging an early election because he is not running again.
March was mentioned, but I hope that will not start a new spate of speculation, and I hope the question of the Leader of the New Democratic Party was not intended in that way. I would just say that an election next fall is possible, but I do not exclude the possibility of an election next spring.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, an election if necessary, but not necessarily an election. The Prime Minister is right at home in his own party. Since the election has definitely been put off and since there are major problems in the Canadian economy, including the textiles industry that may go belly-up in Quebec, the plastics and automotive industries in the province of Ontario, and other sectors in deep trouble elsewhere, will the Prime Minister assure the House, if we are here to do serious business for the next couple of months, that among its measures the government will bring forward an industrial strategy for Canada that will set out for the long term how we can come to grips with our serious economic problems?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the New Democratic Party is catching up with the work that the premiers and myself did in February when we met here and put together a plan for the long term. I am happy to see that it has the support of the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: That is why you did not call an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would urge him and his party to be a bit more positive for the future than they have been in the past.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer, to say the least, does not explain why, within two hours of the Globe and Mail appearing on the streets of Ottawa with news of an industrial strategy outlined by the New Democratic Party, the Prime Minister's office phoned immediately and asked for a copy of the strategy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Will the Prime Minister, who leads a party notorious in Canadian history for being at least ten years
Oral Questions
behind the NDP, and equally notorious for taking some good ideas that are old hat in our party and finally implementing them, at least do us the honour and do a service to the people of Canada by stealing our program holus-bolus and implementing it immediately?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if we did that, the hon. member would still say it was the wrong thing.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Now that the election has been definitely put off, let us get back to business. Last night Senator Marchand made very serious remarks, and I should like to find out whether the Prime Minister shares the senator's views that Canada's problem stems from the fact that the country which our founding fathers thought they were building has remained an illusion. Could the Prime Minister indicate whether he shares this point of view and, if he does, whether he will call together very shortly the various levels of government for the purpose of examining the problem and finding a solution as soon as possible?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I feel as though the hon. member asked me this question because he wanted to give me the opportunity to remind the House and the Canadian people that for the past ten years we have indeed striven to make the Canadian constitution our own constitution, and not merely an act of the British Parliament. In this endeavour, we have tried to co-operate with the provinces, and the hon. member knows that we have not succeeded, but we shall keep trying. As for the rest, not having read Senator Marchand's remarks, I do not know what he had in mind when he said that.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
A little later, the same senator said the following, according to the newspaper Le Droit I have here: Since the beginning of Confederation, the constitution has often been violated and the resulting dispute, if any, was a dispute about government and power rather than a constitutional crisis felt by the citizens, according to Mr. Marchand. So, my question is the following: in light of such words, does the Prime Minister share the views that it is mainly a government crisis, and if so, that it would be

May 11, 1978
Oral Questions
possible to find a solution so that governments understand each other better in order to build a true country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, now that it appears that we are going to stay here for several weeks, I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are going to table before the House of Commons the proposal we announced in the Speech from the Throne, in an attempt to deal with these issues in a much wider context than the constitution itself and to encompass the problems relating to Canadian unity as a whole.


GRANT TO COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR ISSUES IN THE COMMUNITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources: it concerns the Committee on Nuclear Issues in the Community which is funded by a $200,000 grant from the federal government.
In view of the fact that Dr. Pierre Dansereau, former co-chairman of the committee, has resigned from that position, saying that the committee had the appearance of a whitewash since the anti-nuclear viewpoint is not adequately represented on the committee, what conditions has the government attached to its funding to assure that a proper and impartial balance of both pro- and anti-nuclear viewpoints is presented?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, as the chairman of the Science Council of Canada made clear in a statement last week in response to a similar question, the council is using its auspices, at the request of municipalities across the country, to conduct forums and debates as an opportunity for interested groups to ask questions and put their points of view before a panel of experts. That is the function of the Science Council of Canada, and that is why the funds have been provided to it with the support of the Royal Society of Canada.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the minister did not quite understand my question. I asked about conditions that the government would attach to its funding to ensure there is an impartial and balanced viewpoint on the pro- and anti-nuclear sides of the question. Given the fact that the allegations were made by a distinguished scientist and Massey Medal winner, I ask the minister what steps the government has taken to look into them and see whether they are true and, if necessary, to have them corrected.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I believe the allegations are based on some misinformation. The role of the committee is not to act as advocate, as I have already made clear; it is to act as a convenor.


FINANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance regarding the very sorry matter of 35 people employed by Bendix Heavy Vehicle Systems Ltd. in London who, as a result of a ruling by the Anti-Inflation Board that their salaries should be rolled back by some $78,000, are now under edict to repay this at the average rate of $90 per week per employee.
This is a very sorry state of affairs. Even worse, this ruling came after a two-year delay; in other words, there has been foot-dragging. Has the minister looked into this matter, and what can he tell the House about a solution?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, some days ago I received recommendations from the three hon. members of my party representing the London district and I have started to look into the matter. It is a very difficult problem because the law applies to everyone the same way. At the same time, however, I recognize there is a human problem because of the long delay.
I have asked my officials to review it and to see if we can find an accommodation. As soon as I can reach a solution within the law, I shall be delighted to announce it. 1 am not sure if it is possible, but I shall do my best.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to learn that this government has a little compassion for those at the lower end of the economic scale. I remind the minister that the AIB has apparently given a time-frame in which this money is to be paid back: it is something like seven months. At $90 per week, that will leave many employees below the poverty line.
Has the minister considered that time-frame, and will he go to the AIB and indicate that more time is required if there is no room for further negotiation? I am thinking of something like two years. Will he go to the AIB and tell them that would be an equitable solution to a very serious problem?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friends from London suggested three years. I think we will have to find something in the middle. I am looking into the matter.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Now that the right hon. gentleman has neatly provided a six-month hoist for the election, and barring an apprehended insurrection across the way the people of Canada will have to put up with the right hon. gentleman, is he giving consideration to looking into the bottom of the barrel to see if he can improve the calibre of cabinet?
May 11, 1978


ELECTIONS
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. In view of the announcement which, hopefully, clarifies the political situation for some time to come in this country, and referring to a most relevant and topical book-which came out in 1967 before the Prime Minister announced he would seek the leadership of his party-entitled "Federalism and the French Canadians", the foreword written by the Prime Minister, which is the very creed of the Prime Minister, reads as follows:
The only constant factor to be found in my thinking over the years has been opposition to accepted opinions.
Two sentences later he says he likes to swim against the current. I ask the Prime Minister if the decision he announced today was taken in opposition to the accepted opinion of the Gallup poll, or of the Liberal caucus, or both?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that extra time has been given to the hon. member so that he can begin to educate himself.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister who answers for the Minister of National Revenue. A Winnipeg businessman by the name of Don Oliver has claimed that income tax is unconstitutional. Mr. Oliver has publicly claimed that he has not filed income tax returns for seven years, and that the federal government is afraid to take him to court because it knows the Income Tax Act is illegal. If the minister is aware of this case, will she explain to the House how Mr. Oliver could escape paying taxes for the past seven years?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I find this an interesting question about the alleged unconstitutionality of the Income Tax Act. I will, of course, refer the matter to the minister as soon as the question period is over.


A. Daniel McKenzie: As Mr. Oliver has found a loophole, will the minister advise the House and the Canadian people about this loophole so that we can all escape paying excessive Liberal taxes?


Monique Bégin: That would be part of my answer, Mr. Speaker.
Oral Questions


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Following the federal-provincial task force report made public by the Minister of State for the Environment this week; because of the urgency of cleaning up the Ottawa River whose waters are being polluted mostly by industrial and municipal wastes; and because of the need to give priority to the completion of the main sewers and sewage treatment plants for the Outaouais region, can the minister tell the House whether he has received any communication whatsoever from the Quebec government regarding the signing of a federal-provincial agreement for the construction of those greatly needed facilities and so accelerate the fight against the pollution of the Ottawa River?


Hon. Andr6 Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago I read in a local newspaper that the Quebec minister, Mr. Leonard, was to write me a letter with regard to that sewage treatment plant for the Outaouais area, and in the Ottawa area we understand the Outaouais as being the Quebec side and the Ottawa as being the Ontario side. Now, having received no letter, I got in touch with the minister and asked him where it was and whether he had sent it to me. I finally learned that, contrary to what minister Jocelyne Ouellette may have said, the letter had not yet been sent, that the provincial authorities were still working on a draft letter and that I should receive the letter within a few days. Mr. Speaker, the position of the government is very simple: we are willing to make the necessary funds available to local authorities for the construction of that plant. We are waiting for the decision of the Quebec government which has been putting off for weeks both making a decision and giving local authorities the go-ahead for calling tenders for the construction of that treatment plant.


MANPOWER
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
In view of the statistics on unemployment which were released this week and of the fact that it will be very difficult for students to find jobs, would the minister give us now a final answer about the possibility of increased funding to create jobs for students? Could the minister tell us whether or not there will be increased funding?

May 11, 1978
Oral Questions


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we will not be increasing the budget of the Young Canada Works program.

{English]


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. It relates to a number of questions I have raised since last fall and as recently as February 27, more particularly concerning a resolution passed last weekend in Ottawa at the annual meeting of the writers' union which expressed frustration and outrage at the lack of government action on the importation of remaindered editions of works by Canadian authors at below cost price. Can the minister explain why it has taken almost three years since representations were first made to the government to give Canadian writers adequate and proper protection?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer for the past three years. Representatives of the writers' union came to see me three months ago. I immediately looked into this. I am presently discussing several solutions with my colleagues, and hope to have an answer within a week or so.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I had hoped to get a more detailed answer than that from the minister, because it is at least six weeks since I put him on notice in the House and I have yet to receive a reply. As a result of the minister's meeting last Friday with the writers' union, and the possibility of raising this whole matter with National Revenue in the hope of taking some effective action on the enforcement of copyright protection for our authors, has the minister obtained any agreement from National Revenue to take some effective action?
If they feel it is proper or possible to take action, has the minister considered the amendment prepared by the Writers' Union of Canada, the Canadian Book Publishers' Council, the Association of Canadian Publishers and the Canadian Copyright Institute which have agreed on a very straightforward amendment to the copyright law which would adequately protect Canadian authors and Canadian publishers?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we are pursuing the first solution. I have been in consultation with the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State, all of whom have a very strong interest in this matter. We think there is a strong possibility of solutions under the present law.
With respect to a brief amendment, it seems that would be much more difficult because many groups in the country would like to have some input into such an amendment in addition to the writers' union. Consequently, an amendment

would not be as simple as the writers' union thought, and I at first thought, because there are so many others who have an interest, including library associations, booksellers, and so on. I think we will have a solution within a short period of time as a result of consultation with other ministers.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that Bell Canada has refused to produce documents for the Human Rights Commissioner so that he can determine whether Bell is unlawfully barring Jews and women from working on its $1.1 billion contract in Saudi Arabia, and since Bell has also refused to make the details of this contract public at the current CRTC hearings into its application for a rate increase, will the minister order the CRTC to suspend the current hearings until Bell releases the details of this Saudi Arabian contract which has a direct bearing on the Human Rights Act as well as the arguments for a rate increase?


Hon. Jeanne Sauv6 (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as for the authority of the CRTC to order Bell to produce documents, it is quite clear the CRTC has that authority and that it has ordered Bell to produce the contract. The CRTC has the liberty to decide whether that document will remain public or be made confidential. That is to ensure that the release of such document does not damage Bell with regard to some of its competitors.
As for the other question the hon. member has asked, I am looking into the power which the Commissioner of Human Rights has to call for documents in order to examine them to the end the hon. member has just cited. I share with him the preoccupation that any company in this land should not do anything that is discriminatory toward women.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I agree with the minister on the power of the CRTC to request the document. I understand it will not be made public, which will inhibit the intervenors-that is why I asked the minister to take action-as well as the Human Rights Commissioner. Since Bell owes the Government of Canada over $833 million in back taxes, which in effect has been an interest-free loan to the company, will the minister instruct the CRTC to take this financial benefit into consideration with the aim of reducing Bell's inflationary 20 per cent to 28 per cent rate increase?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is suggesting the CRTC is not properly conducting its examination of requests which are made quite openly through the means of public hearings. There is a provision for keeping some of the documents confidential because of the danger that they might help competitors. I think that is a reasonable provision in the law. It is reasonable that the CRTC should be able to assess whether such documents should be released or not. It is in the hands of
May 11, 1978

the CRTC, not Bell. It is not the privilege of Bell to decide whether a document is to be confidential; it is for the CRTC to determine that.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of the environment. On two occasions the minister has publicly indicated his opposition to the Kootenay River diversion. Bearing in mind the minister has an opportunity to advance those concerns to his cabinet brethren, will he advise whether he has done so, particularly in the direction of the Minister of Transport who must sign an agreement under the Navigable Waters Act?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I was expressing a personal opinion when I said I was against the Kootenay River diversion. That is not cabinet policy. I expressed a personal decision after I became a member of the cabinet, because I had expressed a personal position before I was a member of the cabinet that I was against that particular diversion.
The status of the project is this: there is an environmental study being conducted by B.C. Hydro in co-operation with officials of my department. It is expected that this study will be completed some time in 1979. A final decision will then be made on whether to divert the Kootenay or not. It would still be my personal preference that the diversion should not be undertaken.


TRANSPORT
Robert Hylton Brisco: A supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise whether he has as yet been approached by B.C. Hydro or the provincial government to sign a declaration under the Navigable Waters Act which would permit the Kootenay River diversion to go forward?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check whether an approach of that kind has been made, but I would point out that under the Navigable Waters Act any certificate would only indicate our view on the technical question whether any impediment to navigation was likely to occur such as to prevent the project going forward. It would be neither a positive nor a negative sign with regard to the other issue of whether or not the project is desirable.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


BRUCELLOSIS TESTING PROGRAM
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture arising from the enforced brucellosis testing program. Why is this program not being carried out on the basis of a block system whereby certain townships could be declared free of the disease, as is the case under other procedures, thus allowing the movement and sale of cattle as the disease is eradicated? I should also like to ask the minister how long immunity lasts after a herd has been declared brucellosis free?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Before the program was put into effect, all those concerned with the eradication of this disease were consulted, including cattle breeders associations and provincial departments of agriculture whose staffs are responsible for enforcing the regulations. We do know we are experiencing some difficulty with the program in certain areas, but statistics will show that this year will probably be the best year in our history for dairy cattle exports, even though the problem we have with brucellosis is, in my view, being blown out of proportion.
The figures will also show that our dairy herds are freer of brucellosis than those in the United States, for example. We are getting some complaints, but if the hon. member has any suggestions for making the program work in a better way, I would be glad to hear them.


Philip Bernard Rynard: When vaccination was carried out under the dairy program, provision was made to declare herds free on an area basis along the lines I have suggested. That is why I wondered why a similar system was not being used in this case.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we have what we hope will be recognized by the trading nations buying our livestock, especially our beef and dairy cattle, as a system of disease-free areas in Canada. We have already announced these and I will be glad to send a list of them to the hon. member.


IMMIGRATION
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the recently revealed information that a Rhodesian known as John Conradie, otherwise known as "Bomber John", a confirmed, self-admitted Rhodesian terrorist, is here in Canada under a ministerial permit. Will the minister inform the House of the circumstances surrounding this case, and state whether the government intends to take action to expel this self-confessed terrorist?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Conradie had been in prison in Rhodesia since 1966 for protesting that government's unilateral declaration of in-

May 11, 1978
Oral Questions
dependence. We received representations for his eventual admission into Canada from no less a person than the right hon. member for Prince Albert-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: -and from several academics, including the president of Brock University at that time. In 1973, my predecessor agreed that although Mr. Conradie had been convicted, he would probably issue a ministerial permit if the individual was released from prison. The present president of Brock University, Dr. Erp, reaffirmed that the position of visiting scholar at Brock for up to two years was available to him.
On the basis of the representations we had received, and taking into account the fact that this gentleman had been in prison since 1966, it seemed time to follow the lead of my predecessor and to issue a ministerial permit. I must say I do know when certain recent statements were made but, frankly, I think they were inappropriate.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: As a preface to my supplementary question, I might draw the minister's attention to the fact that Great Britain refused this man entry before he was admitted here. Is the minister aware that Mr. Conradie stated to the press in the last week or so:
We should have blown up one or two of the big downtown department stores and I still think we should have done that. I thought we should have tried to destroy as much property as possible.
How can the presence of such a man be justified in Canada? Does the government plan stricter admission requirements to prohibit the entry of such persons as John Conradie, General Quang, and others?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is all very well to talk about Quang and to be knowledgeable after the fact. We were dealing with a Vietnamese refugee situation at that time. A ministerial permit was, in fact, issued; but when we found out the circumstances it was withdrawn. If Vietnam would take him back, we would put him on the next plane. As far as Mr. Conradie is concerned, the best thing he can do is put a zipper on his lip.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of State for the Environment a question for clarification. When he told us his opinion with regard to the Kootenay River diversion, was it a personal opinion or was he stating government policy?


Len Marchand: Obviously not, Mr. Speaker, since it was a personal opinion I expressed. I expressed it after I became a member of the

cabinet, because as a backbencher I had said I was opposed to the Kootenay diversion. I really cannot change overnight. This question will obviously have to be addressed again once the studies are complete.


James McPhail Gillies: Then may I ask the minister who is speaking for the government on this matter of the Kootenay diversion? Who is expressing government policy at this point?


Len Marchand: That kind of decision, as I have said, will be made after the studies are completed.


An hon. Member:: After the cabinet reshuffle?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice with reference to Bills C-51 and C-52, the amendments to the Criminal Code, Bill S-18, before the Standing Committe on Justice and Legal Affairs, and Bill C-42. Does the minister intend to refer these bills, now they have been given first reading, to the Canadian Bar Association, to the various provincial bar associations across the country and to other associations and organizations which have a particular interest in this subject? I ask this question because the minister did mention when they were tabled for first reading, that they were more white papers than proposals to go before the House for second reading.


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: I do not have the precise wording of my press statement in front of me now, but when those two bills were introduced for first reading I made it clear they were being introduced so that organizations of the kind that the hon. member talks about would have an opportunity of studying then and commenting on them. I hope those who are interested will comment and make some response before the meeting of the provincial attorneys general which is to be held late in June.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, do I take it from the minister's answer that before second reading-the amendments to the Criminal Code are substantial-the processes discussed this afternoon with reference to my first question will be followed, so that we can intelligently debate these amendments, particulary when we are dealing with pre-trial procedures and other matters?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make that precise comment, because the reaction to the bills has been generally favourable. I am receiving a large number of requests that they be proceeded with rather quickly. I agree
May 11, 1978

with the hon. member that there certainly must be time for those interested in the criminal justice system to comment. It may well be that it would be useful to have a second reading debate in the House, but not to deal with this legislation in committee until such time as responses are made.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding government business. Today will be an opposition day, and I would appreciate it very much if the government House leader would designate Tuesday, May 16, and Friday, May 19 as allotted days. We have discussed this informally.
If it is possible, would the government House leader be able to tell us now what the government proposes for the balance of this week and into next week? Is it his intention that we stay with the ports bill, Bill C-6, and then move to the ombudsman bill? If that is the case, can the government House leader tell us what the government intends to bring forward following that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. member, it is my intention to designate May 16 and May 19 as allotted days. On Friday, tomorrow, I would like to call Bill C-4, the report stage of the aeronautics bill and, if there is consent, I would like to proceed with the Maritime Code. I understand there has been discussion, and it might be dealt with tomorrow. If business moves very quickly tomorrow, I will call a number of other bills such as Bill S-9, Bill S-3, and Bill S-2. However, notwithstanding the progress which might be made on Friday, it would be my intention to call the tariff bill, Bill C-48, on Monday, and after that the income tax bill for which notice is now on the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the government House leader for that answer. There is an absence from that list of legislation of the Bank Act, which has been of some considerable interest to us. We have raised the matter in the House. I wonder if that could be dealt with. I understand it is ready in the department.
While I am on my feet, I would like to refer the government House leader to the veterans legislation about which a statement was made yesterday. There is some indication that it would be given some priority. Is that the intention of the government House leader and, if so, when might we see that change to the veterans legislation affecting disabled veterans?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the bill is now under preparation. I have had talks with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald), and we hope to bring that bill forward very soon, it is to be hoped next week. The Bank Act is getting some finishing touches, and I hope to be able to make a definite statement on that next week also.
Business of the House


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions to put to the government House leader. The first one has to do with the ombudsman bill. Can the minister tell us where it stands on his list?
My second question arises out of the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressing appreciation for the cooperation the opposition has shown in getting certain pieces of legislation through. As the minister will agree, an area where that co-operation has been outstanding has been with respect to veterans affairs. We passed the bill regarding prisoners of war compensation quickly. We have given an indication that we will pass very quickly the bill regarding the basic rate of the war disability pension. Now that we have additional time, and now that co-operation has been demonstrated, will the minister discuss with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) the possibility of bringing before the House in this session a bill regarding the outstanding issue in veterans affairs, namely, the rule respecting pensions for the widows of veterans?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to raise that point with the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am not sure what his response will be, but I will raise it.
In connection with the question as to where the ombudsman bill stands, it stands very high on my list, but I would like to deal with the budget bills as quickly as possible. It is because of that desire that I have put these bills ahead of the ports legislation and the ombudsman bill, and I would be in a better position to indicate the order of priorities when we conclude the budget bills.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) discusses the matter with the Minister of Veterans Affairs, I invite him to take note of a statement the minister made in the standing committee yesterday to the effect that he and his department are reviewing sympathetically the matter of the 48 per cent rule which applies to the pensions of veterans' widows.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, would the government House leader tell us when we can expect legislation establishing the new department of fisheries and oceans? This was promised to us. It is a matter of some importance to us in the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, to those on the west coast. It is a matter which is also causing some demoralization within the Department of Fisheries. Why can we not bring in a bill to legalize what has become a de facto situation so that the new department can get on to its organization and on to its very important work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has been pressing the same point with me. As in the case of the Bank Act, we have to do some additional finishing up on that bill. I hope it will be possible to deal with it soon, but the principle has already been established, and I understand that a good deal of the transfer

May 11, 1978
Privilege-Mr. A. Lambert
of jurisdiction has already been executed through orders in council. However, there is a remaining portion which may require legislative action in order to ensure that a full-fledged department is established.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been given two indications of intentions to participate in questions of privilege, one by the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) regarding the point raised a few days ago by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), and one by the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald).


PRIVILEGE
Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I believe, the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) raised a question of privilege regarding the CBC coverage of the Social Credit Party convention. I contacted the CBC to get a reply to the question that was asked and this is what I was told.
Last August, the CBC informed the various parties that it had modified its policy of automatic and live coverage of leadership conventions, and that in future it would consider several factors in its editorial decisions for such coverage. There are now several factors to be considered, for example the position that the party occupies nationally, the importance of the convention, the political interest that it provokes throughout the country, the impact of the candidates and of the orientation of their platform, as they appeared throughout the leadership race.
The Social Credit Party convention was to be held in June, possibly in the midst of an election. It was pushed ahead to the beginning of May and was therefore rushed. Candidacies were uncertain until the convention was held. The participation of some important candidates was even doubtful. None of the leadership candidates made a Canada-wide tour. The official nomination of some candidates was apparently made only at the convention.
The French services division of the CBC reported the leadership convention in its radio and television news broadcasts, and decided to review the convention in a one hour peak time program on Sunday night, both on radio and on television. The English television network of the CBC decided to broadcast a half hour special on the convention Sunday night. Monday night, Newsmagazine did an interview with the new leader and Mr. Gilles Caouette. Over the weekend, the English radio network aired news bulletins of the convention. CBC reports were comparable to if not better than those of other networks.

mr. Macdonald (egmont)-national revenue-list of


CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS
David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question of privilege which has come to my notice in the last few minutes. It concerns an issue of which Your Honour and many members of the House are well aware and which we have been raising over the last few weeks, namely, the recent memo that went out from National Revenue respecting the political activities of charitable organizations. I am glad the Acting Minister of National Revenue (Miss Begin) is here, because I think this concerns the rights and privileges of all members of parliament.
Hon. members will recall that a couple of years ago when a similar issue was raised, the then minister, now Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), was in charge of the department and I asked him at that time whether or not it would be possible to have a complete list of the charitable organizations which were registered as having a special tax status with National Revenue. The minister and his officials made it clear that, while they could not provide the list, there was public access to the list and that an official from my office could go to the department and have a look at the list to see who was registered as having that special tax status.
A few minutes ago I was informed that a representative of my office was informed by the assistant deputy minister of Revenue Canada in charge of legislation that this policy has been changed this year and that they will no longer allow public access to their list of charitable organizations. Apparently their reason is that the list contains confidential information. Even apart from that, the official refused to provide such a list with the confidential information taken out, with the simple comment that it was an unreasonable request.
I find it passing strange, in the light of the fact that there has been great anxiety already generated among the community of more than 36,000 organizations in this country about what is the intent of the government with respect to the memorandum which was circulated, and in light of the fact that every charitable organization, to my knowledge, when it raises money indicates in a public way that it has this tax status. I can only believe that this secrecy is not for the protection of the organizations but in some way for the protection of government officials. I suspect that is the reason why the department has changed the position which existed until this year of allowing public access to the list of those who are registered as having a special tax status with National Revenue. I know it is perhaps not possible for the acting minister today to take action to reverse this very serious decision, but I certainly hope the situation will be cleared up shortly because it affects my rights and privileges and, I am sure, the rights and privileges of every member on both sides of the House.
May 11, 1978


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in taking into consideration the fact that I am acting as interim minister. I would therefore prefer to have a 24 hour delay to inquire into the circumstances surrounding what in fact is not government policy but a telephone message to someone in his own office, not directly to himself. I think that by tomorrow we will have had enough time to examine the question in order to give the pros and cons with full knowledge of the matter.


MR. BRISCO-ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-PROPOSED DIVERSION OF KOOTENAY RIVER, B.C.
Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. During the question period I directed a question to the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand). Subsequently another member of this party addressed a supplementary question to the minister, and on each occasion the minister indicated that his pronouncements during the question period, when we are seeking the official position of the government, represent his personal view only which he held before he became a member of the cabinet and which he still holds as a member of the cabinet.
My question of privilege pertains to the fact that the public pronouncements which the minister made to the press, both at Athalmer and to the public in the community of Creston recently, where the minister was on official government business and where he presented a cheque for $55,000 to the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Authority-something that I certainly appreciate-were made in his official capacity. He met these people in his capacity as minister and never once did he indicate to the public that his opposition to the Kootenay diversion was a personal position. The minister succeeded in getting himself boxed in very successfully by questions from our own member. At the same time, while the minister felt that that uncomfortable box was a laughing matter, I can assure him that the people of Kootenay West, and indeed the people of Okanagan-Kootenay, do not consider the Kootenay River diversion a laughing matter.
The following question arises therefore: can the minister, speaking for the government, provide an answer of the nature that the minister has provided when he stated he is giving a personal opinion and not the official government position during the official proceedings of the House, during the question period? Surely members on this side, in addressing questions to ministers are seeking the official position of the government, not the personal opinion of any minister.
If the minister is not providing his personal opinion, then who from among the ministers is responsible for providing the official government position? Certainly the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) is well aware of the fact that his pronouncements with reference to the MacGregor Diversion, when he was responsible for the Department of the
Privilege-Mr. Brisco
Environment, represented the position of the government, in terms of its opposition to the MacGregor Diversion and the reasons for it, when he spoke both in the House and in the standing committee, and I commend him for it. I respect the minister for putting forward the government's view opposing the diversion. That was the position of both the minister and the department, it was the official position of the government. What we heard today, in response to my question to the minister of State, was not an official pronouncement, unless the minister is prepared to rise in his place and confirm that indeed he made an official pronouncement.
I wonder in what position this puts me, the people in Kootenay West, and members of the House who may subsequently wish to put questions to ministers and who become recipients of personal viewpoints rather than the official position of the government.
Hon Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In the absence of the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand), I should like to make a few brief comments. First of all, I think it was rather unwise of the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) to suggest that the Minister of State treated the issue as a laughing matter. I think the hon. member, as well as many other members of the House, know that the laughter which occurred was a result of a fairly amusing remark made by one of his Conservative colleagues in the House, and not in relation to the issue at all. But whether or not he knew that, the hon. member for Kootenay West knew that the Minister of State for the Environment does not treat any of these issues as a laughing matter.
Obviously it is possible for a minister to have personal opinions and to have expressed them before he became a member of the cabinet, and then to be in the interesting position of having to discuss that fact. Whether or not the minister referred to his statements as personal statements when he was out in the Kootenays may be a question open to further determination. Very often a minister does say that this is a personal opinion, and it is not carried by the press at all. In any case, obviously a minister may express personal opinions and need not always describe them as such, but has to live with whether or not they accord with government policy or decisions made later on.
In this case government decisions will be taken from time to time as the issue arises, in the case of transport, as questions relating to navigable waters are determined, in the question of the environment, after the appropriate analysis and studies have taken place, and then a governmental decision is taken. I do not think that is impeded in any way by the expression of a personal opinion by either a minister or a backbencher on any side of the House.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege. My contribution will not be long. It seems to me that we are listening to a third theory of ministerial responsibility being enunciated in the House. There is the standard one where there is ministerial solidarity. Then

May 11, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Murta
we have heard the business of ministerial abdication where they stand up and blame others for the mistakes for which they should assume responsibility. Now we hear personal views being expressed by a minister in the field of his responsibility, indicating that it is not cabinet policy. Surely this is an intolerable situation. It throws the whole business of government in this country into a state of utter confusion. It must be resolved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am going by recollection, and of course I would not make a final determination without having the minister make a contribution to the discussion, if he so desires, and checking the exact record. It is my recollection that the minister confirmed today that he had made a certain statement of his own position prior to entry into the cabinet. He confirmed that position today. He did not go on to give a cabinet position. It seems to me he did not state that was in any way in disaccord with the cabinet's position. Simply he said that it was his own position, and that he was not stating a cabinet position at that time. I am still unable to say whether that in any way undermines the theory of ministerial responsibility. I would want to check the exact text of what was said, and particularly the exact text of the question which was put to the minister, and also give the minister an opportunity to state his own position again, in the light of the question of privilege raised.


POINT OF ORDER
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very short point of order. It deals with the very serious lack of rolling stock to move fertilizer in Manitoba at this critical time. Because my motion under Standing Order 43 was turned down today, because of the crucial situation where fertilizer dealers in Manitoba will be out of fertilizer this week end, and if the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) does not see fit to respond to my point of order, is he able to inform the House, no later than tomorrow, as to the government's intention in terms of taking some of the existing rolling stock and using it for transporting fertilizer over the next few weeks?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, on that point of order I should like to indicate to the hon. member that I would have been glad to have a question on that point. One of the problems regarding the Standing Orders is that if a motion is worded so that it urges the Minister of Transport to take certain vigorous action, and the Minister of Transport has already done so, then there is apt to be some objection on this side to that motion being adopted unanimously and leaving the impression that there is a great deal more to be done.
The problem in question of the shortage of cars results from some very serious peaking of potash movements all across the country. It is one of which both I and the railroads have taken very serious account. We have done what can be done at this point to attempt to obtain additional cars, and to make sure they are available in an equitable fashion for various destinations throughout the country.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (for the Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to table, on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), under Standing Order 41, copies of correspondence in both official languages between Premier Lough-eed of Alberta and the Prime Minister concerning Canada's future export grain marketing strategies.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the thirteenth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,198, 1,392 and 1,495.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

May 11, 1978

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was an American tourist, Mr. Donald Berven, charged by the RCMP under Section 205 of the Canada Customs Act in July 1977 and, if so, was he fined $8,599.18 and given receipt number B 197635?
2.	Was the charge and fine levied because he entered Canada on a two week vacation from New Hampshire without registering his car and mobile trailer with Canada Customs at his point of entry and, if so, is it policy to levy a large fine for such items that will be leaving the country at the end of a vacation?
3.	On examination by senior departmental officials was it found that the charges should or could have been laid under Sections 18 and 180 of the Canada Customs Act and whether or not charges should or could have been laid, is the government prepared to have its legal experts examine the matter?
4.	What is a complete explanation of all details of the case?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of National Revenue and the Solicitor General as follows: 1. No (See answer to part 4).
2.	Not applicable. (See answer to part 4).
3.	See answer to part 4.
4.	In August of 1976, Mr. and Mrs. Donald Auby Berven entered Canada at St. Stephen, New Brunswick, as returning Canadians and were allowed to enter all their possessions duty free. In September, 1976, one month later, during a trip to the United States, Mr. Berven purchased a 1973 Airstream travel trailer and a 1976 G.M.C. truck in the United States. In May, 1977, at the conclusion of another visit to the United States, he entered both vehicles into Canada by telling the Canada customs at the border crossing that he was an American tourist visiting Canada. In fact, the Bervens were residents of Canada since August, 1976 and Mr. Berven was gainfully employed in Canada. In view of these facts they were subject to the same customs laws as any other Canadian resident. Thus, the G.M.C. truck and Airstream trailer were seized by R.C.M.P. investigators under section 205 of the Customs Act as being unlawfully imported into Canada. Mr. Berven was not charged under section 205 of Customs Act, but rather, the goods were seized under section 205 of the Customs Act.
Ruling requests from Unemployment Insurance Commission to National Revenue, taxation (Quebec district office)
Rulings issued by National Revenue, taxation to Unemployment Insurance Commission:	-insurable
-not insurable (a)
Appeals to Minister of National Revenue from Unemployment Insurance Commission decisions (a) above
Minister of National Revenue
Determination: -insurable
-not insurable (b)
Appeals to umpire from Minister of National Revenue determination (b) above
Umpire decision:	-insurable
-not insurable
Umpire appeals pending
On July 19, 1977 the G.M.C. truck and Airstream trailer were released to Mr. Berven, pending final decision, on a deposit of $8,599.18, representing double duty and single taxes. Receipt number B197635 was given.
Mr. Berven, on his own initiative, flew to Ottawa and requested a meeting with members of Revenue Canada on February 14, 1978. After a thorough discussion of the matter, decision was rendered forfeiting $3,153,36 of the deposit and returning the balance of $5,445.82. The amount returned represented the applicable duty and tax since Mr. Berven presented information that the trailer and truck had been returned to the United States and would stay there.


Mr. Dionne (Kamouraska): 1.	From 1975 to December 31, 1977, did unemployed persons claim unemployment insurance at the Unemployment Insurance Commission's Office in (a) Rivi&re-du-Loup (b) Levis and, if so, how many?
2.	For the same period, did the Appeal Board receive appeals from claimants of the two offices and, if so, how many and how many decisions were (a) upheld (b) modified?
3.	For the same period and the same offices, did officers of the Department of National Revenue (Taxation) make decisions concerning the insurability of employment and, if so, how many and were any modified following an Appeal Court hearing and, if so, how many?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Employment and Immigration and National Revenue as follows:
					1975	1976	1977
Yes.							
(a) Riviere-du-Loup	12,508	12,013	11,649(b) Levis Yes.	40,946	38,477	31,358Riviere-du-Loup Total heard	284	364	189(a) Allowed (upheld)	57	105	56(b) Adjourned (modified)	26	37	23Levis Total heard	598	987	1,195(a) Allowed (upheld)	110	141	170(b) Adjourned (modified)	47	128	133See list below.	Riviere-du-Loup	Levis	1975 1976	1977	Total	1975	1976	1977	Total36	55	117	208	212	476	362	1,05021	24	63	108	116	301	248	66515	31	54	100	96	175	114	3859	12	9	30	64	64	61	1891	7	3	11	22	33	26	818	5	6	19	42	31	35	1081	1	2	4	4	3	5	120	0	0	0	0	0	0	01	1	1	3	4	3	2	90	0	1	1	0	0	3	3
May 11, 1978
Fisheries


Mr. Oberle: At the time of General Dare's appointment, what RCMP officers were at, or one level below, his level of appointment?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. M. R. Dare was appointed director general, RCMP security service, (deputy commissioner equivalent) on May 1, 1973. At that time, there were three deputy commissioners and fifteen assistant commissioners on the strength of the force.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore) moved:: That this House condemns the federal Minister of Fisheries for his failure to consult and co-operate with provincial fisheries ministers and fishermen prior to establishing arbitrary rules and regulations which are harmful to the fishermen, and for his failure to develop a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian fishing industry in order to derive maximum advantage for Canadians from the extended jurisdiction.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity on this opposition day to comment on a number of problems presently facing the fishing industry. When looking over recent events which have occurred within the industry, 1 cannot help but be concerned over the statements and the actions of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) as they relate to this important industry.
It is obvious that Liberal supporters are very much concerned during an election campaign about how fishermen may vote, and then the promises come as thick and as fast as the capelin run off the coast of Newfoundland. However, after the election is over, the promises are soon forgotten. This is
obviously Liberal policy. We should always remember that it was the present Prime Minister who called Liberal supporters "idiots" and who said that the political philosophy of the Liberal party is simplicity itself: "say anything, promise anything, think anything, but please put us into power." This scheme has worked very well for the Liberals quite a number of times.
From looking at the polls, it now appears that the electorate are unhappy over the manner in which they have been manipulated. Equally it is obvious that they plan to do something about it, if they are given an opportunity.
We in the Progressive Conservative party are not the only ones concerned over present Liberal fisheries policies. For example, at the recent Liberal policy convention held in Ottawa, between February 24 to February 26, the following resolution was adopted:
That there be co-ordinated development of the fisheries within the regions of Canada.
Even the Liberal party realizes that there is not a comprehensive and co-ordinated fisheries policy in Canada. For this reason, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment should be censured. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment appears content to rest upon the laurels of obtaining the 200-mile limit. If one were to believe the Liberal propaganda of the time, the limit should have been implemented at least five years earlier. We believe the attainment of the 200-mile limit was only the first step. Much more needs to be done for the rehabilitation of our fisheries.
At the Liberal policy convention this spring, delegates cried out for a co-ordinated fisheries policy. It is no wonder they did so, especially when one looks at the recent legislative record of the Trudeau government. During the past two sessions of parliament only two bills were introduced and passed pertaining to fisheries. However, one of these, the small craft harbours bill, allows the minister to set unrestricted licence fees for the use of these harbours. My colleagues and I requested that the minister bear in mind the high unemployment and low income levels of Atlantic Canada and to defer any introduction of licence fees for at least five years. However, this reasonable request was howled down and voted down by the Liberal party.
When speaking of the Trudeau legislative record, it is worth noting that we are still waiting for the promised legislation which will create a separate department of fisheries. In February the Liberal policy convention felt that a separate department was imminent. One resolution which passed read as follows:
We applaud the decision of the government to create by an act of parliament a separate department of Fisheries, and recommend that the new department have a strong mandate in the management of the Fisheries and oceans, with the resources and manpower it requires.
The latter sentence is a point which we have been advocating in this House for years. It is little wonder that many commentators describe the Liberal policy resolutions as being nothing more than direct steals from Conservative policies. As

May 11, 1978

I said before, we are still waiting for this legislation from Pierre the procrastinator. Interestingly enough it was the Trudeau government which in 1970 needlessly ended the existence of the separate Department of Fisheries. And then what happened? During the 1974 election the Prime Minister-I think at that time he was in Digby, Nova Scotia-when he found that the heat was on one of his candidates promised at the time that he would recreate a separate department. Does this sound familiar? Of course after the election the promises were forgotten. That election was 1974, and this is 1978, and still today we are asking, "why has this not been done in this House four years later?"
The promises of this government for a separate department are nothing more than empty promises. An effective fisheries policy requires successful management, and quotas form the basis for the successful management of the 200-mile limit. However, sound quotas rely upon good research. For example, we believe the minister and his scientists overlooked an important fact when establishing the 1977 quotas for capelin and squid.
Fishermen complain about the excessive catches of these species, because they believe they provide the food for the other groundfish in the sea. Of course they do provide food for the cod, which is one of the main fisheries resources that must be restored. Cod in the fishing industry is king, and every effort must be made to restore this particular species. In 1976 the quotas on capelin and squid were 480,000 tons and 99,000 tons respectively. In 1977 they were increased to 500,000 tons and 104,000 tons respectively.
By permitting excessive catches of capelin and squid by foreign fleets, the minister is contributing to the continued decline of our over-all fishing stock because many of our important fish stocks will eat their own if capelin and squid are not available. Yet, only a week or two ago in committee when we raised the question about quotas on squid and their availability, the scientists and representatives from the minister's department said that they do not know if squid live longer than a year and a half, or two years. They admitted in committee that they really know very little about the life cycles of these two important fish species that feed the other fish.
More scientific research is necessary. We need to know what kind of changes in abundance and distribution occur as a result of natural environmental factors. We need to know the interdependence between fish stocks, the distribution of the stocks both vertically and horizontally at any given time, and when and where various fish species spawn. The minister has admitted in his speeches that we are not fully geared up in terms of research for a 200-mile zone. More trained people, more research vessels, and more laboratories are needed. I do not know of any place in the world where he has a better opportunity to get these things.
We have a million people unemployed. We have shipbuilders and scientists looking for work, and why does he not get on with the job? Despite his admission, the research and management budget for the Department of Fisheries and the Environ-
Fisheries
ment was increased by only 10 per cent to $21 million, and scientific manpower will be reduced by 16 for the budget year 1978-79.
The minister shakes his head. I stand to be corrected, because they are making alterations every day of the week. They have read the Gallup polls, and they know they are on the skids. They will now be digging into any pot they can find in order to raise some funds and establish some new programs. Some of the statistics which I am reporting and which come from the estimates books and other sources may be inaccurate in light of recent changes they have made in an effort to please fishermen-"please come back to the fold, please vote for us and please keep us in power."
This minister's attitude and the Liberal government's negative attitude to scientific research, I submit do not augur well for the future. This government has allowed expenditures to the foreign investment review agency to increase by 34.8 per cent and expenditures to the National Arts Centre to increase by 17.8 per cent. We are now subsidizing this organization for $10.4 million annually just "to see the show". Expenditures to the CBC have been increased by 11.8 per cent to $522 million, $10 million a week. This same government, however, cannot find sufficient additional money to carry out fisheries research.
We on this side believe that more fisheries research is essential for the future prosperity of the fisheries. We believe more money should be made available for research, and cutbacks in the above mentioned areas could provide these moneys. This viewpoint was also shared by the industry, for it was in evidence recently in the discussions held at the fisheries council meetings in Quebec.
Our commercial fish landings of 1,136,000 tons are less than one tenth of those of the leading producer of food from water, namely, Japan, which landed something like 10,620,000 tons. I am speaking from memory now and the minister can correct me, but I think we are sixteenth among the world's nations in so far as catching capability is concerned. Our catch represents approximately 2 per cent of world fisheries production. While these comparisons are interesting, they do not adequately describe the importance to Canada of food from water. It is more meaningful to say that many coastal regions are completely dependent on the commercial fisheries. It is more meaningful to say that a large scale production of a great variety of aquatic foods helps to meet the demand for protein in human diets.
We are seeing a shift of emphasis at present away from competitive exploitation of wild resources toward intensively managed fisheries resources. 1 believe that this gradual shift will continue, and in the long term aquaculture will play an ever-increasing role in the growth of fisheries. At present world production of fisheries from wild resources appears to be levelling off at about 70 million tons, while aquaculture, at six million tons, is still growing. Aquaculture is very important in many areas of Canada, and especially important to my colleague, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), who has told me that scallop fishermen in the Northumberland

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
Straits have some definite ideas for aquaculture development, if only the minister and his officials would consult and listen to them.
I believe that in the long run world trends in aquaculture will be followed in Canada, but to help bring this about we need a shift in our scientific program. Why, for example, should our scientific studies simply be a repeat of studies carried out by other countries? Surely, some effort should be made to have a quarterly, bi-annual, or annual scientific periodical prepared in which our scientific information on ocean studies and fisheries resources could be exchanged with friendly, co-operating nations.
To ensure that long-term research is not sacrificed for short-term needs, Canada needs a separate identity for fisheries research. We have had the Fisheries Research Board of Canada in operation for something like 75 years. I submit that now that we have taken over an area of the continental shelf one-third the size of Canada, the Fisheries Research Board and its activities must be reorganized and strengthened, and it should be encouraged to exchange fisheries data and facts with our friends internationally. Our bilateral agreements-I am sure the minister is well aware of this-cover this point, but 1 ask the minister are these agreements working? The machinery is there to hold scientific consultations with countries like Norway, Russia, Japan, Poland, Spain, and Portugal, to name but a few, but are these agreements operative?
I wish to turn now to another aspect of the Canadian fishing industry, namely, fleet development. I believe if we are to take full advantage of quota increases we need to start now on a program of rebuilding the Canadian fishing fleet. In the past, foreign fishing fleets often outfished Canadian vessels because of their modern equipment. In contrast, the newest vessels in the Canadian fleet are eight to nine years old, if we exclude the two scallop draggers that were launched only last week in Pictou.
Rebuilding the fleet was also a topic of discussion at the recent Liberal policy convention. Two resolutions were passed which urged, and I quote:
That the government direct financial assistance to expand the fishing industry, and
That the government participate in the program to make funding available for the building of new inshore fishing vessels. [DOT]
It will be interesting to see whether pressure from the Liberal rank and file will have any more impact or effect on the minister than the arguments of the Atlantic premiers and the fishing industry, and the arguments of the fishermen themselves. Obviously these well-meaning Atlantic Canada Liberals fired up the minister because he decided to tell them where they could go. Only four days after the Liberal convention, the minister, in a speech to the Herring Fishermens Marketing Cooperative, on March 2, in Saint John, New Brunswick, stated among other things:
The people who want to double the fleet are well meaning, they have just failed to examine the facts.
He also said that fleet expansion is only one of the mixed up ideas in the air. The minister has obviously picked up some rather bad habits from his leader, a leader who said to paraphrase him, that when members of parliament are five feet away from Parliament Hill they are nobodies. Obviously the Minister of Fisheries believes that when Liberal delegates are away from Ottawa they are nobodies and have mixed up ideas.
The minister's indifference not only applies to Liberal convention delegates, the so-called grass roots of his party, but applies as well to anyone who dares oppose him and his policies.
On April 26 the Halifax Chronicle-Herald carried a screaming headline on the front page-"Nova Scotia Has No Say In Policy", and the article read in part as follows;
The federal fisheries department has not honoured its pledge to seek more consultation and co-operation with the provincial fisheries department and local fishermen, fisheries minister Dr. Dan Reid said Tuesday.
Two days later the same Liberal provincial fisheries minister moved a resolution in the Nova Scotia legislature condemning the undue and harsh federal fisheries department regulations that were imposed, without consultation, on Nova Scotia fishermen. Finally, when these representations were ignored by the federal minister, Premier Gerald Regan, Canada's most western Liberal premier, sent a telegram to the Prime Minister protesting the arbitrary actions of the minister in the strongest possible terms. It is my understanding that the Prime Minister invited Mr. Regan to come to Ottawa to sit down with him and the Minister of Fisheries. It is also my understanding that Premier Regan told him where he could go, and it was not to Ottawa.
Last Friday we noticed that the usually genial minister was absent from his seat. He was dragged haltingly, grudgingly, belatedly, screaming down to Halifax to meet with Premier Regan where he finally agreed-


Roméo LeBlanc: That's not true.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister said that is not true. He had better argue that one with the press because there is a picture of him smiling with Premier Regan, on the front page of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald. All is sweetness and light; all is honey and roses. The minister finally agreed to review his arbitrary regulations.
The minister cannot say he was uninformed of the fishermen's concerns. I and my colleagues in this House raised the matter on numerous occasions, and time and time again in committee. On April 28 at page 4971 of Hansard my question is recorded. I simply asked the minister to consult, rather than confront, Canada's fishermen. His response is a classic of arrogance and indifference. I could hardly believe my ears. The minister replied:
As for the complaint of the minister from Nova Scotia, I really must say that we cannot have negotiations with fishermen's groups, with processing groups and with provincial governments and then try to synchronize all of these every time we have to make a management decision. It is obvious that in the case of the management of the stocks the federal government, which is responsible-and, by

May 11, 1978

the way, which has to carry the can when there is a disaster-will continue to assume that responsibility, even if it means that at times provincial ministers are not satisfied.
So much for consultation. What colossal gall! This is nothing more than jackbooted, bully-boy, dictatorial tactics. It is "Alice in Wonderland" thinking. It is as if they say, "Everything we say, or order, or do, is right because we say it is right, and any one of you fellows who disagrees with us is nothing more than a separatist." That is what we get from the other side these days.
This minister and this government should know, but they have obviously forgotten, the primary rules and purpose of democracy. They have forgotten that they were elected to serve their fellowman-not elected to enslave him.
It was not only the premier of Nova Scotia who had to wire this minister. On May 9, Premier Bennett of British Columbia wired the Prime Minister and asked him to get with it through his Minister of Fisheries and help ease some of the problems on the west coast. This minister has consistently opposed the rebuilding of the Canadian Fishing fleet until quotas or stocks have fully recovered. He has stated in his speeches that a rebuilding program would put pressure on him to increase quotas prematurely. I say this need not happen if it were the Canadian share of the over-all quota which was increased at the expense of the foreign share and not an increase in the over-all quota. After all, Mr. Speaker, it was the minister who said that the foreign fleets would only be allowed to catch those fish which are "surplus to our needs".


Roméo LeBlanc: That is right.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says that is right. I say to him that by not building now the result will be the foreign fleets will make the greatest headway in future quota allocations.
I sometimes wonder if the right hand in this department knows what the left hand is doing. The minister's views on rebuilding the fleet are not shared, for example, by the federal Atlantic regional director general of the fisheries and marine service, Mr. Douglas Johnson. Last August when addressing over 150 delegates attending the Atlantic Fisheries technological conference in Halifax, Mr. Johnson is reported as stating that the development of non-traditional Fishing of such species as squid and silver hake will generate hundreds of onshore and offshore jobs in the Atlantic region. When making that statement Mr. Johnson knew that these soft species of Fish can only be caught with freezer trawlers. The minister's views on freezer trawlers are not shared by Mr. Eric Nowe, business agent for over 1,000 Nova Scotia Fishermen, who stated on Saturday, April 29, that the province's Fishery will go nowhere unless it expands into freezer trawler fishing of non-traditional species.
I believe we need to develop a Canadian capability in new Fish species, otherwise these species will always be surplus to our needs, available only to foreigners, and our people will continue to be unemployed. I believe that within the next Five years we need a minimum of Five freezer trawlers with the capability of catching and freezing species such as silver hake,
Fisheries
round nosed grenadiers, Argentine, squid, capelin, and offshore mackerel, which must be frozen as quickly as possible upon removal from the sea. Practically all of these species are presently being given away by this Liberal government under bilateral agreements as surplus to our needs.
The minister shakes his head. He should get together with his own officials. I raised this question in committee only last week. I wonder how many members of this House are aware of what we are talking about in weight? In reply to my question, Dr. May, director general of resource services, stated that Canadians have been allocated a quota on the Scotian Shelf of silver hake of 17,200 metric tonnes for 1977, which he admitted is a substantial amount in light of the fact that catches of this Fish are almost zero. Those are his words. If the minister does not like them, he can argue with his own officials. We have the same quota for 1978, and without a Canadian fleet of freezer trawlers our catch will again be zero. Dr. May also stated we have a quota of 1,000 tonnes of round nosed grenadier, a quota of 25,000 tonnes of squid, and an allocation of 60,000 tonnes of capelin. Anyone familiar with the fishing industry knows that in these figures lies a whole new industry for Atlantic Canada.
Dr. May went on to say that the difFiculty in acquiring a capacity to exploit these underexploited species is the presssure such an operation will put on the Fishing of more traditional stocks. What seems to be ignored is the fact that whenever we bring in foreign freezer trawlers under any arrangement in an effort to take some of these under-utilized species, we automatically put fishing pressure on the more traditional species, which appears to me to be a penny wise and pound foolish Fisheries policy. The quotas are there; they are allocated to Canada, so it only makes common sense to build at least a few freezer trawlers in order to capitalize on this resource.
The foreign fleets are obviously not as keen on conserving our Fish stocks as is the Minister of Fisheries. As he is well aware, there are rumours of "juggling" quotas within our 200-mile limit. There is also an apparent escalation of fishing effort just outside the 200-mile limit by countries which may be flying flags of convenience.
There are reports of Mexican, Venezuelan, and possibly Spanish flags in evidence just on the fringe of our 200-mile zone, and their operations may well not be in accordance with rules laid down by the International Commission for North Atlantic Fisheries prior to the implementation of NAFO, the organization which replaced ICNAF.
We must ask ourselves what this new threat does to fish stocks that cross over the 200-mile zone and why we are so reticent in providing new job opportunities in the fisheries for Canadians. According to all reports, many people in Atlantic Canada are still looking for work. In April the seasonally adjusted Figure for the Atlantic area was 13.2 per cent. I submit that construction of some freezer trawlers would provide meaningful employment, ashore and afloat, for some of these people.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
The minister has pointed out that the government does have a fishing vessel subsidy program for new vessel construction and refits. However, the budget for this program has remained constant over the past several years, while inflation has sent vessel costs skyward. Clearly, the funding is inadequate. That is why we have proposed the establishment of a fisheries development fund from which grants and loans would be made available for ship refits as well as for new vessel construction by the inshore fleet or for freezer trawlers.
On shore, this fund could provide assistance for the construction of freezers or holding depots for fish. By being able to freeze more fish, processing plants could operate year round, providing needed employment in our maritime regions.
It is obvious, when looking at the 1977 landings, that steps must be taken immediately to capitalize on all our fisheries resources. According to preliminary statistics for 1977, and if these are not correct I hope the minister will update them, fish landings showed a tremendous dip from 1976. For Canada as a whole, fish landings dropped by 37 per cent, from 2.4 billion pounds in 1976 to 1.7 billion in 1977.
In yet another field, the boundary problems on both coasts are yet to be resolved. On Georges Bank, we urged the government to consider seriously a joint management scheme with the United States. The Atlantic premiers and New England governors agreed to such a scheme in June, 1977, but unfortunately to date this matter is unresolved.
In still another area, if fishermen are to benefit from increased catches, our marketing efforts have to improve. We should and we can expand our markets in other world areas, specifically in Europe and Japan. The Japanese are anxious to buy more fish since they have lost vast areas in which they formerly fished prior to the extension of the 200-mile limit. Mitsunori Yoshida, a representative of Japanese fisheries, says the Canadian fishery offers a great hope for his countrymen who annually consume ten million metric tonnes of seafood. This offers a tremendous challenge to Canadian entrepreneurs.
It must be obvious from what I have said that I believe there are great opportunities being offered today by the fishing industry. However, it is obvious, I also believe, that in order for the industry to achieve its full potential there must be clear-cut, long range government policies which will permit the individual fisherman, the entrepreneur, and the private sector to plan properly for its development.
I have stated a number of important areas where I believe government policies are incorrect, unclear or non-existent. As a result of this situation there is a feeling of inertia and uncertainty throughout the entire industry which has significantly diminished the ability of the private sector to plan ahead, and to secure the benefits which should be available to stimulate the Atlantic economy.
We on this side believe that control over the fishing industry must be retained by the federal government. However, in carrying out the many functions that go with this responsibility, such as establishing the total allowable catch, the allocations for the inshore fishermen, the offshore fishermen and
foreign vessels, the issuing of fishing licences, and assistance in rebuilding the fleet, to name but a few functions, there is no reason whatever for the lack of consultation with the provinces on these matters which have a vital impact on their local economy and their way of life.
The federal government must assume an important role in the over-all development of the Canadian fishing industry. However, the industry is like a diamond, with many facets, It has many aspects whose development can best be carried out by the private sector. While I believe the government should improve its surveillance and coastguard capabilities, I do not believe, as a supporter of free enterprise, that the government should own or operate processing, handling, or cold storage facilities.
Government should not become engaged directly in marketing fish products or in the operation of commercial fishing vessels. These activities should remain-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The House may be disposed to let the hon. member continue beyond his time. Is there consent for the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the House. I shall endeavour to finish within a few minutes.
I believe these activities should remain with the private sector, the individual fishermen or fishermen's organizations, or co-operatives or private companies incorporated to fill this particular role. When the minister states that he and his government intend to play more than a supportive role in these fields, he simply compounds the uncertainty created by his own government's lack of policy.
What the fishermen and the industry are crying out for today is a clear statement that the government does not intend to intervene in the areas which I mentioned and that it will stick primarily to its support role.
A supporting role should not only cover a policy of investment allowances or tax remission when freezer trawlers are built, but the Income Tax Act should be used to stimulate a policy of fleet replacement. Some of our shipyards are already dosed and the valuable skills of the shipbuilders, once lost, are not easily replaced. So that our inshore, as well as our offshore fishermen can plan ahead, we need a policy for licensing inshore and offshore vessels which will maintain some balance in the catching capacities of these two segments of the industry.
In areas where there are definite signs that the inshore fleet is growing, where there are father and son teams, and where the small local communities are almost entirely dependent on the fishery, policy must be established which will ensure that the opportunities for growth in those areas are recognized.
This government should realize that equipment used at sea, on salt water, deteriorates very quickly. Fishermen should therefore be permitted not only a regular write-off of ships and

May 11, 1978

equipment, but a special allowance which could be used towards the cost of replacement. If this policy were followed, the industry could generate a much larger amount of the capital required for fleet replacement and it would be less difficult tc secure investors throughout Atlantic Canada for the construction of inshore and offshore ships.
Since the present minister and this government have not come forward with any progressive policies along the lines 1 have mentioned, I have moved, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House condemns the federal Minister of Fisheries for his failure tc consult and co-operate with provincial Fisheries ministers and Fishermen prior to establishing arbitrary rules and regulations which are harmful to the Fishermen, and for his failure to develop a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian Fishing industry in order to derive maximum advantage for Canadians from the extended jurisdiction.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, one of the difficulties in responding tc the remarks of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) is that he persists in repeating some of the misinformation or misunderstanding which 1 have tried to correct during question period. Either he does not read, or does not choose to read the answers. A case in point is on the question of freezer trawlers. I made it clear to him, no later than yesterday, that 1 would be quite willing to look at licences for freezer trawlers if proposals were made covering only under-utilized species but did nol expand the existing fleet and the existing pressure on the stocks.
The hon. member also chooses to ignore the research program we put into effect in preparation of the 200-mile zone, probably the most extensive of any country of a size comparable to that of Canada, indeed, superior to programs of countries whose area is much larger. He continues tc spread scare stories to the effect there is total disorder and chaos outside 20C miles He refuses to recognize it is due tc extraordinary efforts on the part of my officials and of ministers involved thai we have succeeded in obtaining recognition o! Canada's special interests outside, of 20C miles.
I could go into such questions as capelin quotas. The hon. member gave the figures only for the two most recent years forgetting, of couise, to give the figures which show a diamatic reduction in the catch of capelin over the last five years. Recognizing that the supply of cod has dramatically incieased, there is obviously a need to conserve the food which they utilize, capelin. This becomes a high priority.
As for my meeting with Premier Regan, the actual picture belies the "screaming and kicking" image which the hon. member used. I said, in fact, that I was ready to meet the premier or any of the ministers he might assign for a meeting, but it would have to take place in Ottawa because I was held here by cabinet meetings on Tuesday and Thursday of last week. Alternatively, on my way to the great Liberal convention ir, Fredericton I would be happy to go to Halifax. This I did, and it was a very productive meeting. That is reality, not press speculation.
Fisheries
The hon. member opposite has placed a motion before us which takes me to task for my so-called failure to consult and co-operate with provincial fisheries ministers and fishermen. If I have failed to do either, the hon. member from South Shore and myself are using different dictionaries.
To my mind, consultation with provincial ministers of fisheries is precisely what took place last Friday when I met with the premier and with the fisheries minister of Nova Scotia in an effort to find an equitable solution to the dilemma facing Digby scallop fishermen. Consultation is the precise purpose of the meetings of the Offshore Ground Fishery Advisory Committee which are going on right now in Halifax. That committee is made up of senior representatives of the provincial fisheries departments concerned, senior management of the federal department, representatives of fishermen's associations and the industry. Consultation is the reason I shall not be able to stay in the House throughout today's debate, since I am committed to meeting with the British Columbia Wildlife Federation and hearing the views of the federation at its annual meeting in Chilliwack. I can assure the House that neither of these two examples was conveniently arranged to coincide with the present debate and provide me with an easy answer to the hon. member's charges. They show that the mechanisms for consultation are not only in place but are being utilized.
I could give many more examples which burst the bubble of the motion placed before us, but I shall not ask the indulgence of the House while I go thicugh the list. It would take up my allotted time, and more. Instead, I wish, with your permission, to table documents which outline those mechanism for consultation and co-operation-some 28 pages for consultation in Canada alone, including, of course, examples of the types of meetings in which I have been engaged over the months.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent for the minister to table tlie documents to which he has referred?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: We would prefer to have the minister with us for the whole of the debate, but that is second best.


Roméo LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing these facts to be put on the record. They are important. There are many mechanisms for consultation which are available affecting provincial governments, various sectors of the industry, processors, fishermen, and other interested parties.
As I have said and documented, Mr. Speaker, consultation between all aspects of the fishing industry is an ongoing and valued aspect of the management of this nation's fishery by this government. Not only are we engaging in consultation but we are making sure that the department is as close as possible to the fishermen.
I wish to touch briefly on the degree of decentralization of the fisheries management of the regions. Since I assumed

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
responsibility for the fisheries in 1974, my department has moved increasingly toward further delegation of authority for fisheries management to regional fisheries. I am proud to point out with respect to the fisheries component of the department that more than 94 per cent of the personnel work in areas outside the national capital region. The Treasury Board task force on decentralization indicates that this is one of the most decentralized organizations in the federal government. Not only have we decentralized our personnel, we have given them the necessary authority to take decisions and to react to problems on the spot.
In the last five years we have established regional directors-general in six major Canadian fisheries regions. These positions are staffed by competent senior executives who are in close touch with the fishing industry. Reporting to them in many locations are area managers who, again, are given responsibility for taking local decisions.
I am personally very proud of another decentralization measure which I instituted. It is the appointment of community service officers who live and work in fishing villages. These officers work closely with fishermen interpreting federal fisheries policy and regulations, helping them cut through red tape and, equally important, feeding in their point of view. I think these are all examples of effective consultation.
But in accepting and encouraging the consultative process I must also keep in mind another truth, that is, the reality that consultation is no guarantee for unanimity. We might as well resign ourselves to the fact that there will always be competing interests and objectives. The federal authority for fisheries is the clearing house for these divergent views, the mediator for conflicting opinion and, ultimately, the decision maker. The federal authority also carries the can if things go wrong, and I did not hear the provinces yelling too loudly to join in when the going was rough. Decisions have to be made somewhere, by someone, and I, sir, not the hon. member opposite nor the president of a provincial fishermen's association, nor even a provincial minister of fisheries, have to make those decisions. And I have to answer for those decisions in this very House. The constitution clearly places that responsibility in my hands and I believe, without reflection on my person, that this responsibility is placed as it should be.
As all members of the House are aware, a great deal of time and energy is spent in resolving boundary and quota disputes between ourselves and our neighbours to the south. I am frankly less eager to see that same time and energy being expended at the provincial level.
If fish grew roots I would be willing to give a fair shake to the argument some provinces are currently expounding that they should have a greater role in decision-making affecting fisheries management. Fish, Mr. Speaker, are not trees. And for the converse reason, forestry is not a federal responsibility. Some stock, for example the Atlantic salmon, migrate past five provinces. If we were to hand those five provinces five knives- or perhaps I should say five fishing poles-to divide up that resource, I am afraid their five hooks might end up in each other's eyes.
There can be no movement from the premise that the common property of the living resources of the sea requires federal management. That does not preclude, and the documents I have tabled prove we have not precluded, the important role of the provinces in working with the federal government or their role in relation to the processing industry, in education and training for fisheries, and in matters such as providing good roads and water supplies to serve the fish plants.
An encouraging, positive step in that vein is the increased recognition of fisheries in some recent provincial budgets. In addition, shared optimism toward the future of the fisheries appeared clearly at the first ministers' economic conference in February where, for the first time, fisheries was included among the sectors of the economy to be discussed and became publicly identified as a major and growing sector of the economy.
This same confidence is also evident in the decision of this government to restore fisheries to its rightful place as a separate government department, a move, I am pleased to note, which was greeted enthusiastically by hon. members opposite. I hope, now that that other decision has been taken, we can move diligently to bring forward the legislation.
Let me touch for a moment on just what it is we have to be enthusiastic about. The fishery today represents a billion dollar industry which in the last four years has increased its production value by 55 per cent, increased its export value by 65 per cent, and taken control of 630,000 square miles of resources, which means it can double its supply of raw material. Today's fisherman is earning an income 50 per cent higher, in real terms, than he could ten years ago.
We are at last approaching the day when we can say that Canada's oldest industry is one of its best. An industry formerly fraught with instability and low return can, if we sensibly and carefully develop the management regime to reap the best benefit from extended jurisdiction, become one of the maint-stays of this nation's economy. We must, however, not be blinded by this bright future before us. We must not forget the lessons learned from past mistakes. Time and time again high hopes, messages of promises and zealous enthusiasm, have seduced us into grand failures. This is what we must avoid in fisheries. No one wants to add the 200-mile zone to the list of broken hopes.
There is no doubt in my mind that the sure way to shatter that hope is not to have a national approach in developing policies and management of a national resource. We will only avoid discord, costly collisions and fragmentation of effort, by a common acceptance and sensitivity to a goal which is wider than provincial boundaries and local considerations.
I have to say that the so-called current difficulty with the provinces is much more evident in reading newspapers and listening to the hon. member for South Shore and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) than it is in my

May 11, 1978

personal dealings with my provincial colleagues or with fishermen.


Mr. McCain:: You don't deal with them.


Roméo LeBlanc: The cries we are hearing today for increasing provincial responsibility for fisheries management were not heard when prospects for the industry were bleak. This is really a case where victory has many fathers, and defeat is an orphan.
Our final goal, which must not be lost sight of, is simple. It is to make fishing a profession which will be as attractive to the next generation as it is starting to be to our own. It is to create a self-sustaining industry which can give to its fishermen the benefits enjoyed by all other organized professions in our society, which is security of income and security of employment. It is to give the shareholders of the companies involved a reasonable expectation of return on their investment and, foremost, to give the coastal communities-the small coastal communities-in whose name we argued for the 200-mile zone, the assurance that they will be served first.
We must assure them that their needs will be met first and that the right of the many will not be sacrificed for the privilege of the few. There are, by the way, some sure-fire ways of ensuring that the inshore fisherman, who deserves the most from extended jurisdiction, is going to get the least. Let us look, for example, at the much touted plans for fleet expansion. No doubt, to handle the increased ground fish on the Atlantic coast we will have to have replacements for some of the aging sectors of the fleet, and eventually, with stocks recovering, perhaps some expansion, but 1 do not see the need for panic button expansion. Between 1959 and 1974 the tonnage of larger Atlantic vessels over 50 gross tons multiplied by five, that is, increased by 500 per cent. The Atlantic catch of all species went up only about 10 per cent. The little old fleet of the 1950s was catching almost the same amount of fish because there were more fish to catch.
The present ground fish fleet of larger vessels has the capacity to take half again its present catch and provide better incomes, if we increase the number of fish in the water and if we increase the catch rates. If we do it the other way around, that is, increase the fleet first, we are like a man looking over his exhausted woodlot who, instead of planting more trees, is spending his money on more chain saws to cut the shrubs.
There are opportunities for expansion in fishing capelin, silver hake, Argentine, and grenadier, the so-called under-utilized species. Federal subsidy and licensing policies are geared to encourage diversification into these species, but I can only reiterate what I told the hon. member for South Shore yesterday in this chamber, and that is that the economics of fishing these species seem to attract the Canadian industry about as much as fishing for sun fish or sea cucumbers. The day may come for silver hake and the like, as it came for the lobster we once used to fertilize our fields. In fact there are some signs that we can develop under-utilized species, as we have done with squid for the past couple of years, but the fact is that my desk is not overloaded with applications for licences-which I
Fisheries
would grant-to catch those underutilized species which our industry has not always found economic to catch.
I know that some people, mostly from outside the fishing industry itself, are impatient with the cautious federal approach to fleet expansion, but have reasons for this approach. We have bitter memories of disasters as a result of over-hasty developments, and I cite herring on both coasts as an example. There are also good examples of fleet development which resulted from private initiative working in a good framework. The salmon fleet and the herring fleet on the west coast are good examples of organized and well disciplined development.
I might add with regard to the progress we are seeing in the 200-mile zone that we have a dramatic salmon enhancement program. This program will double the present level of the catch on the west coast. It gained cabinet approval because it promised money and profits for Canada and for it fishermen, plant workers, and the industry in general. These profits have been based on holding the line on over-expansion in fleets or over-expansion in processing to avoid dissipating the gains that were made.
The simple argument against holus-bolus expansion of our fleet is to examine what improved catch rates on our existing fishing vessels will mean for fishermen. They are who we are here to serve, and I see no faster road to disaster for them than to forget the very simple rule of thumb that biology cannot keep up with technology and that the wealth of the oceans cannot yet match the greed of man.
I have made my position very clear on many occasions. We have before us the opportunity to become one of the world's largest exporters of fish products by value, or the owner of the largest fish warehouses in the world. That is one of the reasons we attach great importance to marketing. We have to recognize that Canadians fish for dollars rather than for food supplies. The extension of fisheries jurisdiction by Canada and many other nations has brought major structural changes in world markets, and Canada's need for new and expanded markets, both for traditional and non-traditional species, clearly necessitates national policies and initiatives.
I want to take this opportunity to commend the formation of the Canadian Association of Fish Exporters, which will become known as CAFE, and of the British Columbia Seafoods Group.


Mr. Friesen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would allow me to ask a question on the matter which he has just covered. Would he mind if I asked a question now, or would he prefer me to wait?


Roméo LeBlanc: I would prefer it if the hon. member would put his question at the conclusion of my remarks, although I am in the hands of the House. But if he does not object, I would prefer him to put his question at the end.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
As I was saying, 1 commend the creation of an association of processors in a marketing organization, and I expressed the same satisfaction with the creation of the west coast group. The more market intelligence, promotion, and development I see, the more positive I will be about the future of this industry. The federal government has helped to instigate CAFE, and to see the positive results of its marketing effort will be most reassuring. But our interest does not stop there. We will keep an eye on this organization to see where we can assist it. It may be that eventually we will ask parliament to help it, as other nations have helped their marketing organization, with a legal framework.
There is just not enough time for me to touch on all the examples that are available to show the extent of the federal government's involvement in this industry. Such an overview would quickly and effectively dispel any truth there is in the words contained in the motion which prompted this debate, that there is not a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian fishing industry to derive maxium advantage for Canadians from the extended jurisdiction.
Let us look at some of the facts. In 1974 Canada took 34 per cent of all fish caught off her Atlantic coast. In 1978 Canada has 53 per cent of the total allowable catch, and most of the remainder is non-traditional species, such as capelin.
In 1974 Canada took 34 per cent of traditional groundfish, such as cod and haddock. That figure has risen to 69 per cent of the total allowable catch in 1978 inside and outside the 200-mile zone. When we allow for allocations to the United States and the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and for allocations of stock either exclusively beyond 200 miles or straddling the boundary, foreign nations have only 13 per cent of the traditional groundfish, and those allocations are almost entirely in the northern areas.
I think I must inject some realism into what has already been said by the hon. member for South Shore, and no doubt what will be said by other opposition members as this debate continues.
We must face the future of the fishing industry with all our expectations in line with our opportunities. There must be a balance between the vested interested within and between provinces. I think I have been very tolerant amidst the swirl of misinformation and opportunistic public statements which have been coming at me and my department over the past months.


Donald W. Munro: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a small point of order. The minister has just been giving figures for 1978. It is my impression that we are now at May 11, 1978. I wonder how he can produce figures for 1978 at this point in the year.


Roméo LeBlanc: I am afraid I did not quite understand the hon. member's question. The allocation between nations, between fleet types, etc., are set a year in advance in the fishing plan which was triggered on January I,
1978.1 will check in case I misinformed the hon. member and I will obviously put the facts on the record.
Perhaps the hon. member for South Shore has done me a favour by presenting his motion today, thus giving me the opportunity to set the record straight.
I need only turn to the controversy over the seal harvest to cite an example of where the tide was turned on misinformation. I can only say to those who would see themselves as the Brian Davies of the Atlantic fisheries, that they should be prepared to have their arguments stand up to close scrutiny.
I am willing to consult, as I indicated before. I think the paper I have tabled showed that I am willing to consult. I am consulting, but I ask that those with whom I deal understand the federal position. Because fish laugh at borders, federal fisheries must cross those borders. When many interests are at play, being responsible to all means you can never satisfy all. Trying to do so-trying to tell everyone what they want to hear, and granting every request-would be the end of our hopes for management of the fisheries.
Sometimes the decision that is best for all is bitter to the few; that is sad but is unavoidable. The lesson of history is that fisheries management never takes care of itself; it needs management that makes sense on an over-all level. To the provincial spokesman arguing for more jurisdiction over fishing, I can answer that I will not abdicate lightly the power given by the constitution, the same power that in the last four years enabled the federal government to take such strong action in getting the 200 mile limit and in rescuing and reinvigorating major sectors of the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: I might mention also the attitude I sometimes encounter, that consultation with the provinces should mean automatic adoption of their views, even when their individual views differ, for example, the jealous claims to reserve all the fish migrating near a province for that province, a claim that flies in the face of every principle of national unity or of sensible management of the fishing industry.
Recently I read in the Financial Post someone's remark that fish did not come from Ottawa, it came from God. I do not know what fisheries act applies up there, but I do know my responsibility as custodian of the resources of the seas on behalf of the people of Canada, and I intend to maintain clearly the lines of responsibility. The fish belong to the people of Canada and are managed and allocated on their behalf by a department responsible to this parliament. The fishermen are licensed to catch the fish. I see them as being free to sell fish with a minimum of constraint and a maximum of organization to protect their interests, but I see constraints, for example, as no wholesale selling over the side without some processing in Canada. I see the processors as making their own decisions as to processing the raw material they bought and selling it on the open market, again only with such constraints as will be in the interests of the whole country.

May 11, 1978

Fisheries have become a bit of a bandwagon. Sometimes I suspect that if fishing and fisheries could survive when few governments were interested, except for the federal government, and when many people ignored their existence, it may survive this renewed interest when there are many people who would like to take over the wheel of the wagon. My colleagues, especially my parliamentary secretary and others, will cover other aspects of the fisheries. I am thinking in particular of the international dimension and of inland waters. The fact remains that my predecessor of many years ago-I am flattered to have been compared to him at one time-the Hon. Jim Sinclair, once said this is a great portfolio and he would have no other. After three and a half years in charge of that portfolio, and despite our differences of views at times, I still think that this is a fabulous portfolio and I would not ask for any other for a good time to come.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, in the four years that I have been here, the salmon enhancement program to which the minister alluded has spawned more public statements than it has fish, and he has brought it to the fore again today. I was just looking at a letter I received from a new organization related to the salmon enhancement program called the B.C. Task Group, which I believe the minister organized. On the surface at least it looks like not a bad idea. I should like to ask the minister a question regarding one sentence in the letter which reads:
In other words, the salmon enhancement program has a built-in public involvement process that makes sure that more than just the civil servant has input to, and responsibility for, its success.
This is calling upon community people from all professions and levels of society to help fisheries officials implement the salmon enhancement program. I am concerned about whether this will be a community process. Will it have any power of decision-making? Will all of the provided information go into the Department of Fisheries and the Environment? What will happen if the department does not like the information and decides on a policy which the involved local people do not like? Is there any way for these people, who are closest to the work and immediately affected by it, to have a possibility of reversing the decision made by officials of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of scooping myself, I should like to indicate that I will have a fair amount to say on this very question tomorrow at Chilliwack. As the hon. member may know, suggestions have been made that the programs should be in the hands of the management board, with financial responsibility resting with the minister because of the expenditure of public funds. The fact is that this management board will have a majority of non-gov-
Fisheries
ernmental employees. It will represent all the user groups such as sport and commercial fishermen, wildlife organizations, the public at large, et cetera.
If the hon. member reads the remarks I make tomorrow, he will find that my statement is very positive concerning the involvement of the public at large. One of the most attractive features of this program is the very wide acceptance, interest and involvement of large elements of the public. This should be continued and reflected in the management board.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. 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 Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Medical Research Council-Funds for research; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Airports-Construction of facilities at Charlottetown-Alleged delay for economic reasons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crouse:
That this House condemns the federal Minister of Fisheries for his failure to consult and co-operate with provincial Fisheries ministers and Fishermen prior to establishing arbitrary rules and regulations which are harmful to the Fishermen, and for his failure to develop a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian Fishing industry in order to derive maximum advantage for Canadians from the extended jurisdiction.
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has rendered a useful service to the House by presenting a motion which permits a discussion on the fishing industry. The fishing industry is becoming an increasingly important factor in the economy of Canada.
The Canadian fishing industry is geographically divided between the Atlantic coast and the Pacific coast. Consequently, the New Democratic Party has had a member from the Atlantic coast on the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond
5330

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
(Mr. Hogan). He will take part in the debate later and will discuss the situation in the Atlantic area. Our representative from the west coast is the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Not only has he been a very active member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, but he has attended various international conferences on the law of the sea. He has played a very useful role in this regard. Unfortunately the hon. member for New Westminster had a commitment in his own constituency. He is flying back to Ottawa and perhaps will be here in time to participate in the debate tonight. Therefore, I am taking his place by being lead-off speaker.
I make no pretension whatsoever at being an expert on fisheries, nor have I ever been a member of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, but I have spent many, many hours sitting on the docks and talking to the fishermen of my constituency. I have travelled a good many miles with them through the Gulf of Georgia, the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and up into some of the northern waters. Therefore I have had many opportunities to talk with them and listen to their complaints. I want to say to the minister that these fishermen have complaints. Fishermen like farmers are not born bel-lyachers. They do not tend to complain all the time. Most of the time they accept the vicissitudes of life with great equanimity. I have listened to their complaints and have attempted to pass them on to the minister.
The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) is one of the more competent ministers in the government. He is one of the ministers with whom one can take up a problem and be assured that it will be given prompt attention. He may not be able to do what one asks him to do, but he is very assiduous in the discharging of his duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have always found him approachable and willing to listen to reason. He is a great improvement on some of the ministers of fisheries and the environment we have had. Certainly he inherited a sorry mess. Some of the things I will say are not said as a direct reflection on him, but on a lack of policy over a good many years. However, the minister ought not to take too much comfort out of statistics, as he tended to do this afternoon. He spoke about the incomes of fishermen being 50 per cent higher than they were ten years ago. If the minister will take the trouble to look at the cost of fuel for ships, buying ships, licences, operating ships, and the cost of living, which has risen a great deal more than 50 per cent over the last ten years, he will find that the real incomes of fishermen have not kept pace with the general state of conditions in the economy as a whole.
Briefly, I should like to enumerate some of the complaints I have received from fishermen in my constituency. The first complaint deals with the boat licensing system which was inaugurated by Mr. Jack Davis. I remember when it happened.
I remember hon. members of the New Democratic Party took strong exception to it. Our objection was based on a number of

grounds. Our first ground was that it was not being done by an act of parliament and there were no regulations. One of the difficulties with the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is that so much of the actions taken by the department are passed on to the public through press releases, ministerial statements, and ministerial orders. Very little of the actions are in the form of regulations passed under an act which can be examined minutely, so that a person knows with certainty what his or her rights are. That is one complaint we had about the licensing system. It is still true that there is a very vague area surrounding the entire area of boat licensing.
We objected to the boat licensing system when it was inaugurated because we were convinced that it would develop a trade in licences, that licences would become commodities. Certainly that is true. Every other week end when I return to my constituency, fishermen or young men who want to become fishermen are in my constituency office telling me of the fabulous figures they have to pay to buy a licence. It almost costs as much now to buy a licence as it does to buy a boat. Virtually this precludes many young men from getting into the fishing business at all. 1 realize the objective was to keep down the number of people in the fishing industry because of conservation. That was understandable, but I should like to say that it was rendered on the basis of the pocketbook, and it has not worked satisfactorily.
The worst criticism when the plan was introduced, and it is being demonstrated every day, was that it would lead to an increasing concentration of fishing in the hands of a smaller and more elite group and eventually into the hands, in large measure, of the fish processing industry. There is a good deal of dissatisfaction with reference to both licensing systems. There is a good deal of need for either the fisheries committee of the House or a task force to re-examine it and put it in proper legislative form in such a way that there is not this trading in licences.
The second complaint I get from the fishermen in my constituency is that we are being out-manoeuvred in our talks with the American negotiators regarding our fishing rights. They feel, and I must say that I share their feelings, that our attitude in negotiating with the United States has a cap-inhand posture about it. I noticed that even in the discussions in the House on Monday when my colleague, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), and myself yesterday, were asking questions about whether or not we should make it clear to the President of the United States that if the Americans are not going to carry out their commitments under the proposed reciprocal temporary agreement, Canada will have no choice but to follow a similar course of action.
Immediately the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talks about threats. Surely it is not a threat to say if two parties have reached an agreement, and one party decides to renege on that agreement, it is no longer in effect as far as the other party is concerned. All we are asking is that the Americans be reminded that the proposition works both ways, but we are accused of
May 11, 1978

trying to threaten the Americans the moment we ask the government to stand up and make it clear that we Canadians have rights as well.
The minister in reply to a question from the leader of this party last Monday about retaliation said that it should be noted that last year when the Americans put some restriction on our fishermen we reacted by keeping their shrimp boats out of our waters. It is true that the government stopped the shrimp fishing off Tofino last year for the American fishermen, but it is equally true that we stopped it for the Canadian fishermen when conservation restrictions were placed on shrimp fishing so that on the grounds of conservation they could say to the United States that "neither of them are fishing and we are not really retaliating".
There has been a series of retreats in this whole matter of negotiating fishing rights as between the United States fishermen and the Canadian fishermen. I would like to remind the House that we once had a fish war between Canada and the United States. This afternoon the minister referred to Mr. James Sinclair, who was one of the best ministers of fisheries we have ever had in Canada. In the 1940s when he was minister of fisheries the Americans decided to fish very heavily on the fish that normally go up the Fraser River. Mr. Sinclair ordered all the west coast fishing boats in the Strait of Juan de Fuca to intercept the fish which would normally be going to American waters, and it did not take very long for the Americans to realize that it was not a very productive kind of confrontation. The result was that they came to their senses and began talking business. I can still remember Mr. Sinclair's statement to the effect "We do not want this fish war, but when you plead and ask and request and get no answer, then you have no recourse but to take some steps."
All the fishermen are really asking for is a feeling that we are prepared to stand up and fight for them, not to be belligerent or to ask for more than we are entitled to, but just not to be pushed around. We have an example right now in this 1978 proposed interim agreement. It is the height of absurdity when we, by executive order, announce an agreement which has not yet been ratified by the United States Congress, leaving the whole proposal open to court action by any group in that country. This is what has happened. The report is that the United States west coast fishermen have told the United States Senate committee that they propose to drop the charges on the understanding that the United States officials will not allow Canadians to expand into more salmon trolling areas off the United States west coast as is promised and proposed in the Canadian-U.S. 1978 agreement. I do not know whether the American government will give them that concession, but if they do I assume that our Minister of Fisheries will stipulate that what we gave under the 1978 agreement will also be set aside.
Surely there must be a better way to work out relations between the two countries with respect to fisheries other than to have Canada in the ridiculous position of having by executive order agreed to a certain policy only to find that the policy is not effective because it has not been ratified by the United
Fisheries
States Congress. If we are going to accept an agreement with the Americans, then that agreement ought to come into effect only when it has been ratified and we would not be placed in the ridiculous position which we are in at the present time.
The fishermen do not know where they are at. On Monday the halibut season opens, and the representatives of the Department of Fisheries have told the fishermen on the west coast to go up to the Alaskan waters to fish, and hope that the Americans do not raise any objections. However, as long as the interim agreement has not been passed by congress there is nothing to prevent anybody from getting an injunction to stop them. This is a very embarrassing situation and a very clumsy way in which to carry on negotiations between the two countries because, if the Americans insist on going back to the 1978 interim agreement, it will mean our fishermen will not be able to do salmon trolling in the waters off the coast of Washington. Or if they do it will be in an area which was restricted by the agreement reached last year to allow the Americans more offshore area in return for the fact that they are giving more inshore area to their native Indians.
This was a bad decision, and many of the fishermen's organizations argue that it lost them 40 per cent of their potential catch. I am not in a position to say whether that is accurate or not. What bothers them most is that they keep insisting they have never been consulted about this. It is true they are asked to come to meetings in Ottawa or that a meeting is held in Vancouver and they are told a few things there, but the real decision about the final agreement has only come to them after the fact.
In the time I have left, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the thing that is causing the fishermen the most concern at the present time is the question of the negotiation of fishing boundaries with the United States. I tried to follow the negotiations and I have to say that I think the Canadian government, to use the language of the street, has "blown" this matter of boundaries. Canadian negotiators are taking the legalistic position of the equidistant line, whereas the United States is arguing for the maximum or trench system, which I understand they are arguing against on the east coast. The minister will say that the position we are taking is without prejudice. That is a good lawyer's position, but everyone who has ever negotiated knows perfectly well that when you go before an arbitration board it will not just look at the documentation but at the positions the two parties took originally. If they have to look at the trench proposal and the equidistant line proposal we will have already lost a good deal of the fishing potential to which we think we are entitled.
We fear there is a strong possibility that the boundary line will be brought down as far as Hecate Strait and Dixon Entrance. If it is, it will deny west coast fishermen of a good deal of the area upon which they have depended for their livelihood.
I hope that sometime soon the minister will tell the House the extent to which the fishermen's organizations on the west
80038-47*/2

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
coast have had an opportunity to contribute some input to these negotiations regarding boundaries. I do not mean being asked to a meeting and given a free lunch-I mean a real input about the extent of meetings with Mr. Cadieux and having someone sitting in on the discussions, or even in an anteroom, who could be consulted during the discussions. This is important to them. It is their livelihood, and not just for today or tomorrow but for the years ahead.
I conclude by saying to the minister that if he were to listen to the message from the fishermen who ply the waters of the Pacific coast he would hear them saying they want more consultation, they want to feel they have his ear, that they have access to the Canadian negotiator who is determining what their fishing areas will be in the future. They want consultation, Mr. Speaker.
The second thing that I say on their behalf is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish my sentence. I think the fishermen would say to him-and I say it on their behalf-that he must put some backbone into the negotiators who are acting for Canada. The United States' negotiators have been very clever-the United States have always been good negotiators and good traders, as we know to our cost if we look at our history. The fishermen of this country expect the minister to see to it that those who represent Canada and speak for the fishermen in these negotiations, show the kind of backbone needed to ensure that in the future the fishermen of the west coast get a fair deal and a fair share of the fish to be caught in the Pacific Ocean.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate in the debate generated by the motion of the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). I want to congratulate the hon. member because fisheries, an area of utmost interest to me, represent with the implementation of the 200-mile zone a substantial economic development potential for the Maritime provinces and eastern Quebec. Before discussing the hon. member's motion I would like to make a few remarks about the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), not because he is not competent, as the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) suggested earlier, but because he is a man I admire, a loyal and open man and I am convinced that he gives a lot of his time for the advancement of fisheries in Canada.
However, as the minister suggested, the Gaspe area is the most underprivileged area in eastern Quebec. Its fisheries are

today its door to the necessary development to its economic survival. On April 25 last in Gaspe an economic summit on maritime fisheries was organized by the Quebec government where it and all other interested organizations were represented, except the federal government which was conspicuous by its absence. Is that as a result of the war of nerves the federal government has been recently waging in Quebec? It seems to me that childishness has lasted long enough. So I take exception to the fact that the federal government which has considerable input in the fisheries policy should not have considered appropriate to delegate a representative to that economic summit vital to my area. It seems to me that when the minister and the officials of his department consider it appropriate to participate in various regional meetings in the Atlantic provinces, they could have done the same thing in Gaspe.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I would not like at all to leave on the record an assertion which may not be accurate and this is why, further considering the problem of the relations with one province in particular, I should say that we were invited to send the deputy minister who, unfortunately, was held by another meeting. We suggested sending the regional director in the province of Quebec, who has a high ranking position in my department. We were informed that only people at the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister levels were invited, not as participants but as observers. So I think the hon. member should know the exact facts.


Eudore Allard: I thank the minister for his explanations. Of course, as he will recognize himself we had some reason to know why the representatives of his department were not there. 1 thank him.
Mr. Speaker, this criticism goes in the same direction- except for the one relating to the representation in Gaspe-as the motion moved by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), as he also deplores the lack of co-operation and consultation between the federal government and its provincial counterparts. Although the 200-mile zone limit is an unprecedented asset for the eastern part of the country in particular, it seems to me we should establish at any cost a global policy, a policy of cohesion involving both the provincial and federal governments. I am convinced of the minister's dedication to the development of fisheries in Canada but it appears clearly to me that we do not draw all the benefits we should from the extension of our fishing limit to 200 miles. For example, for 1977, when the 200-mile limit was introduced, our catch for all species in the Atlantic area were only 58 per cent. As far as the catch of so-called traditional species is concerned, namely those we fish intensively, the figure was 76 per cent, which is an increase over 1976 of only 14 per cent. I seems very low to me.
The minister has announced to the House that for the current year foreign quotas would be almost exclusively made
May 11, 1978

up of species which we do not exploit much such as silver hake, capelin, silver-fish, roughnose grenadier and so on. I am quite happy that foreign involvement in our traditional fisheries in Canada has been almost eliminated but we should make a breakthrough in fishing for the non traditional species which I have just mentioned. Those resources belong to us and I think that diversifying our fishing products would help stabilize that industry.
Of course, successful management of our fisheries requires that we make sound decisions on exploitation and preservation of stocks. One just has to look how herring has been overexploited on our coasts to realize it. So we must tread softly and not repeat past mistakes. That is why we cannot let foreigners exploit some species because we have no ship equipped for that kind of fisheries or there is no substantial demand for those species. At that state, it is up to government agencies to promote catching of less known species in assisting fishermen who would to get involved in this fishery, in finding markets and in stimulating the domestic demand with advertising and information campaigns. We do that already for dairy products and eggs, so why not for fish? I realize also that from January to September 1977 we imported quantities of codfish, salmon, silver-fish, herring, crab, lobster and some other species which are abundant within our waters and that such imports amounted to close to $70 million.
Is this situation due to bad marketing or bad forecasts? It should be noted that these species are fished mostly in the Atlantic, in our waters, and that they come back to us as finished products. Mr. Speaker, $70 million is not a sum to be taken lightly, especially in an area like the Gaspe peninsula. It is therefore imperative not only to ensure our share of foreign markets, but also to protect our domestic market because of the present level of competition on world markets.
I believe that to take advantage of the increased stocks of groundfish on the Atlantic coast, we should refit our fishing fleet, which is becoming rather obsolete. In this regard, I am concerned by the fact that Quebec received nothing under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act between July 1977 and December 1977. It is necessary to offer good credit facilities to allow our fishermen to equip themselves for new fisheries outside our traditional fishing industry and to allow them at the same time to remain the owners of their boats. Finally, we should improve the lot of our inshore fishermen who have been hurt in the past by the depletion of the cod stocks. I am happy that in 1978 the inshore fishermen will receive 80 per cent of the cod quotas in Canada. This is a step in the right direction.
Sea fishery in Quebec provides employment for about 100 communities along the Gaspe coast, on the north shore and in the Magdalen Islands. It provides employment for nearly 6,500 fishermen and just under 1,500 people in processing plants. Unfortunately, there now exist certain difficulties, including smaller catches and aging of the fleet. It is therefore important for my area that in the next few years there should
Fisheries
be a development policy to increase and stabilize the income of fishermen as well as employment in the sectors of processing and marketing.
I therefore ask the minister not to favour certain areas of the Atlantic region at the expense of others. It seems to me that the Gaspe peninsula has suffered enough from the indifference of governments as concerns its economic problems. The Gaspe people must have their share. Mr. Speaker, even though the minister has in general showed great interest in helping our fishermen develop a prosperous industry, it still remains that there is a lot to be done to guarantee that our resources will not be unduly exploited by foreigners at our expense. The sea is a reservoir of countless resources and will remain our great strength if we learn to preserve and develop systematically those resources.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) that as far as the staff is concerned, it is still difficult for the employees of the Department of Fisheries and Environment to work in their native tongue, especially on account of their low percentage of representation, that is 13 per cent, as well as the low rate of bilingualism among English-speaking employees, as mentioned in the last report of the Commissioner of Official Languages. Consequently, I would urge the minister to cope with the linguistic inequality by increasing the percentage of French-speaking employees to a fairer level to provide better services to French Canadians.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to have had the opportunity to second this particular motion today because it gives me another opportunity, unfortunately an opportunity that we have to come back on again and again, to underline the shortcomings of this government. I regret that we have to return so often to a theme in the fisheries-environment area with which we have dealt on numerous occasions before, that is, the government's inadequacies.
Since the government persists in disregarding advice offered to it, suggestions made from this side of the House, smug and satisfied that its own ways are best, I have no alternative but to return to the charge, because I am satisfied from some of the borrowings that have come from the policies enunciated on this side that those policies are the correct ones. Furthermore, in other areas, notably in criminal justice, the Post Office and the economy, this government has proceeded on its own course, smug and satisfied that its own ways are best, in total disregard of the advice offered to it from this side of the House and from a somewhat less subjective perspective. Look at the results: a crime rate that makes Canadians, even here in Ottawa, uneasy about going out at night. We read reports daily in the newspapers and hear them over the air. We have a Post Office where morale is so low that the mail is being delivered in an offhanded, negligent manner, and an economy that has about as much resilience as a flat tire.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
Today we hear of a third theory of ministerial responsibility enunciated by the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Mar-chand). Aside from the present minister, to whom I give a fair amount of credit, what makes us feel that this government is going to act any better as a government in this area than it has in any of the others? In these circumstances it is the opposition which, though without the power to change the direction, is called upon to point in the direction to which we should be heading. It is up to us to set the gyro in this desert land where landmarks are so few, and get the caravan of state moving toward a predetermined destination.
There is one feature of the government's failure to govern which imposes a certain restraint upon responsible critics such as I happen to think I am. In the circumstances now prevailing, at this very moment when negotiations have reopened in Ottawa to determine the rights and responsibilities of Canadian and American fishermen on the west coast, it is extremely difficult to underline the longstanding failure of the administration to prepare itself for the burden which would result from this assumption of responsibility, if only for fisheries management, for the 200 mile zone. I do not want to weaken the bargaining hand of the Canadian negotiatior at this critical juncture. I know what problems he is facing, what odds. But it is the fault of the government for failing to provide him with sound and credible grounds from which to bargain.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) mentioned the government's failure to put some backbone into the negotiating team. I maintain that it ought to have been put there ten or 15 years ago when the 200-mile limit was looming before us. But what do we find? We find that the enforcement machinery is not in place. There is no sign of its being put in place even today. Ought it to come as a surprise, then, that there should be an injunction from the American courts preventing Canadians from deriving benefit from an interim agreement?
I wanted to ask a couple of questions today. I wanted to know whether the government intends to accept any dilution of the rights agreed upon under that interim agreement. After all, an interim agreement is, nevertheless, an agreement. We understood it was an agreement. The Americans, apparently, do not think it is until it has been ratified. Is the government prepared to assure us that it will not accept any dilution of the rights agreed to in that document, and prepared to take reciprocal action in the event Congress should block the treaty?
Further, should we decide on such action, do we have the means? That is where the great difficulty arises. It is the ineptness of the government over the past ten or 15 years which has brought us to this pass. I refer, of course, to the barely adequate enforcement machinery in the hands of the government in terms of accepting the responsibilities it assumed in extending Canadian jurisdiction. Government spokesmen maintain it is adequate. I maintain it is not.

The government contends we are talking about an international agreement, or a bi-national agreement, and that enforcement should be conducted by the flag state, that is, an offender would be judged in his own courts for an offence committed on the territory of the other state and that, in consequence, all that needs to be done is notify the flag state of an infraction, in the case of a foreign fisherman, leaving the imposition of sanctions to that state. In other words, a United States fisherman, even if he were caught in Canadian waters fishing illegally, would be brought to justice and penalized in the courts of the United States. A Canadian fisherman doing something wrong in American waters would be brought to justice by the Canadian courts.
It is extremely difficult, when one has completely inadequate enforcement machinery, to produce evidence in court to prove there has been an infraction of an agreement involving over-fishing or fishing in prohibited areas. To do so requires evidence taken on the spot by enforcers of agreements. I contend that the necessary measures should have been under construction during the past ten years when we knew we were headed for the 200-mile limit. All we do now is to notify the flag state that one of its ships is in breach of the agreement. We do this, presumably, on the evidence of overflights. But get the picture of a ship rocking on the waves somewhere out at sea! Mr. Speaker, I do not recall seeing the latitudes and longitudes marked on the waves. And that is what one has to prove.
Enforcement by the flag state is really no way of enforcing jurisdiction. And I don't want any smart cracks from the other side about us getting our act together, suggesting that fisheries spokesmen on this side are always talking about spending money while spokesmen for finance are always calling for restraint. I am talking about government policy over the past ten or 15 years. The government has done nothing during all that period. I could reel off on the fingers of my two hands the names of all the enforcement vessels on the west coast, and probably, using two hands and my feet, the number of tens of people there are to operate those boats. We hear that on one occasion when the salmon season was opening one ship was unable to sail because of engine trouble, another was in dry-dock, and a third could not find a crew to go out to sea. Those were the three coastguard vessels. When were they built? The first in service was built before some of the hon. members sitting in this chamber were born. It was built in 1932. Sure, she is up for auction at the moment. The most recent one was built in 1967, 11 years ago, and nothing I know of is going on the stocks.
Ten years ago our negotiating teams were in New York, Geneva, Venezuela, negotiating the Law of the Sea, knowing full well the time was coming when we would go to 200 miles. Still, nothing is on the stocks. There is nothing in the estimates, now, to provide for the vessels we need. I think it is scandalous.
Is it any wonder we are in trouble on the west coast? What about the Dixon entrance? Why cannot our negotiators secure something sensible and realistic? Why are we not taking every
May 11, 1978

step necessary to get Canadian rights off the Alaska panhandle to Canadian-bred fish breeding on their way back? Those are American waters, but do Canadian fishermen have any rights in those areas? No, because we cannot enforce those rights.
The parliamentary secretary knows what is happening. We are losing some fishing area there which we have claimed for a long time. We claim it, but we claim it with nothing to back up our claim. We do not back our fishermen up. We do not back our negotiators up, and it is high time there was something put into the estimates to back up our international negotiators and our fishermen.
The command structures we have are completely at sixes and sevens. They are not properly integrated. There are military, police, customs, fisheries, and research vessels out at sea at different times and in different places, but they do not have the power at all times to do fisheries patrol work. If they should find someone out of place, they do not have the power to use that as evidence. Not even out to the 50-mile limit do we have that.
It would surprise the House to learn that a commander of one of our service destroyers has to get special powers from the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to stop a vessel. I think that is outrageous. He should have that warrant at all times. By contrast, at last count the U.S. coastguard-and I looked up some figures this morning which are about a year old-has 124 deep sea vessels, some with the capability of doing 29 knots. They have 36,300 men in their service, and there are 12,300 miles of coastline to patrol and defend. That 36,300 figure is just about half the size of our armed forces.
Where has this government put its priorities? We have 17,800 miles of coast line, and with the 200-mile limit we have increased our responsibilities over a third of our territory. What do we have by way of back-up to enforce our jurisdiction? We have nothing like what we need. Is it any wonder that we are in trouble when we are negotiating? We have had a very smart and good team negotiating at the Law of the Sea conference. I give that team full credit. We have a shrewd and capable negotiator dealing with the Americans. There is no question about that. We have made some yards on the international front in many areas, but on bilateral negotiations we have been going through with a whimper because we cannot back our negotiators up properly. Is there cause for concern? I think there is, unfortunately.
Fishing in British Columbia is an important industry which is worth defending. There are serious problems confronting the industry. Between 1976 and 1977 fish landings decreased on the Pacific coast by 19 per cent, about one fifth, from 383 million pounds to 322 million pounds. That was the Canadian catch. The Japanese, Russian, Polish and Korean landings were something else again. Prices were firm, and that is good. That is not the problem. Take-home pay was good, but poundage was bad. This could mean trouble in the years ahead, and
Fisheries
we have got to know somehow or other whether the problem is the result of foreign fishermen or declining stocks. These are important problems.
I now come to the question which was raised by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, when he talked about research. Yes, there has been some research. Much of it is going out by contract to individual private companies. That is fine, as long as there is no patronage, and one wonders.
I have here a document which indicates that $12 million worth of research has been going out to private companies in the last couple of years, more than $6 million a year. Some of that money went toward getting public reaction to the salmon enhancement program. There is no need to spend money learning public reaction. The salmon enhancement program is needed. The minister made a good case for it. Let us get on with it. Let us not spend money learning public reaction and putting out publicity. Let us get on with enhancing salmon stocks. That is what it is all about. This business about publicity, putting out brochures, having radio programs and so forth, is nonsense. It is all right for carrying on some of the work at international conferences. I would buy some of that, but I will not buy it to the extent it is revealed in this document.
Unfortunately there are more questions about fisheries than there are answers. Moreover, I am thinking only of the west coast. I have not touched on the Arctic or the east coast at all.
I have not touched on the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation in Manitoba or on the Great Lakes. The problems are immense. I dealt briefly with the west coast salmon problem and the need for additional policing and an international agreement.
What we obviously need is a reasonably just area assignment on the west coast under international agreements of some kind which will stick. We could call them international arrangements in order to avoid ratification. We could give them an umbrella treatment until a firm international agreement could be concluded and ratified in the appropriate manner in our two Houses. In these bilateral talks there are obviously trade-offs, extending fishing jurisdiction for Canadians to compensate for the fish take allowed to the Indians on the Olympic Peninsula and that sort of thing, but there is one other matter of great concern to me, and that is the effect on our fisheries of oil spills and the failure, again, of any coordinated approach to the whole matter. It has not proceeded far enough. There have been some talks, but the government has been delinquent in this area, as in all the others.
The government has known for years that oil tankers would be coming down our Pacific coast from Valdez. I am informed that the location of clean-up equipment is all on a computer. I am going to get a print-out. I have yet to see a print-out.


Benno Friesen: It won't do you any good.


Donald W. Munro: I am told that Canada had observers at the oil spill clean-up on the Brittany coast earlier this year at the time of the Amoco Cadiz disaster to watch how it was being handled. That is fine.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald W. Munro: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief, but I am worried about clean-up.
I will try to summarize quickly because I know other speakers want the floor. There is the matter of compensation. Under American law there is provision for some $200 million as a compensation fund. Under Canadian law there is provision for a $40 million compensation fund, one fifth that of the American fund. That is not enough. We have more coast. More damage can be done to our coast than to the U.S. coast.
Then there is the matter of liability and traffic controls. The traffic controls, they say, are now voluntary and they may be mandatory in due course. What about the standards of shipbuilding, the standards of seaworthiness, crewing standards and the placement of the clean-up equipment? I contend that all this deserves a place in a bilateral agreement between Canada and the United States. I am referring to compensation, liability, mandatory traffic controls, shipbuilding standards, crewing standards and all related matters affecting the pollution and the deterioration of the breeding and migratory grounds of our fish. All these deserve a place in a bilateral agreement to which Canada and the United States should be bound.
There are other areas with which I would like to deal but I cannot do so now. I shall leave to someone else the salmon enhancement program. For all the reasons I have stated, because of the government's shortcomings, its lack of foresight and its inadequacy, I subscribe fully to every word of the motion put forward by the hon. member for South Shore, and I enjoin others to do likewise.


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the Leader of Opposition (Mr. Clark) is present because the previous speaker, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), took a great deal of time suggesting that the federal government is not enforcing the 200-mile limit and that we should spend literally millions of dollars on the purchase of vessels. I would like to take a few minutes to comment on what the hon. member has said, because I think that if we look very closely at what has happened in the first year of enforcement of our 200-mile zone, we will find that the first interesting thing was that before 1977 Canada had negotiated with the distant water fishing fleets and had signed agreements with 90 per cent of those fleets that they would respect the 200-mile limit.


Donald W. Munro: Oh, come on!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Obviously the hon. member does not like hearing the truth. By obtaining agreements with these distant water fishing fleets, we saved Canada innumerable millions of dollars. On the question of inspections, instead of having very expensive ships or aircraft patrolling the world's largest coastline, what we have done in many cases where a distant water fishing fleet had obtained a licence from the Canadian government is to send one fisheries officer by helicopter to the mother ship. The fisheries officer went on board the ship and stayed there during the whole time that the ship was in Canadian waters. I am sorry the hon. member has left the chamber. What we have done is to save millions and millions of dollars by having someone on board the distant water fishing fleets. We had only one man doing the job instead of a ship worth several millions of dollars crewed by thirty or forty people.
The hon. member is proposing that we should spend literally hundreds of millions of dollars when we can hire fisheries officers to go out on-board these ships, and thus gain much better knowledge of what is being fished, how much is being fished and what type of species is being fished. Because obviously that gentleman on board the ship sees the fish coming on board. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will have a good talk with the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich and will tell him that it is in the interests of Canadian fishermen not to throw money down the drain but to use our resources in a logical manner.
Perhaps the hon. member is not aware of the fact that in 1977 fourteen convictions were recorded against foreign captains for breaking Canadian regulations. Also, our fisheries people have issued warnings and cancellations of licences. I understand that on the east coast alone, 900 foreign fishing vessels were inspected by the Department of Fisheries and also 170 Canadian fishing boats.
So I caution those who would literally spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a process that we do not require. I hope that the licensing system we have instigated whereby foreign nations must apply to Canada for a licence, following which we allow them to enter at a point of entry, specify the length of stay and the amount of catch and have one fisheries officer on board, makes much more sense than the suggestion put forward by the hon. member earlier.
Let us consider the motion before us today. I think its allegations can be refuted in several ways. First of all, I should like to quote the minister of fisheries for British Columbia, the Hon. Rafe Main, who spoke at the federal-provincial conference which was recently held in Ottawa. He spoke on the subject of fisheries, and after making his initial comments on behalf of British Columbia, he said the following:
In summary, Mr. Prime Minister, we are very pleased with the co-operation that we have with the federal government... We have had hitherto, Mr. Prime Minister, this co-operation in British Columbia and we sincerely hope it will continue and British Columbia hopes to make it continue.
May 11, 1978

That is slightly different from what the motion says, that co-operation with the provincial ministers does not exist. Lack of consultation was also alleged. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) has tabled several documents regarding meetings he has had with premiers and with fishing groups, but he did not say much about them-he is a very modest man. Let me give the timetable of the minister for the current month, specifying his meetings with provincial ministers and with fishing groups. For example, tomorrow the minister will be meeting with the B.C. Wildlife Federation in Abbottsford, B.C. On May 5 the minister met with R. Cashin, president of Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers. On May 5 he met in Halifax with Premier Regan of Nova Scotia. On the same day in Halifax with Premier Regan and the Hon. Dan Reid. Again on the same day he met in Halifax with the Hon. F. Mooney. On the same day in Halifax he met with the Digby scallopers. On May 3 in Quebec City the minister met with the Fisheries Council of Canada. On May 2 in Ottawa he met with Richard Cashin, president of Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers. That was his timetable in May. These have been the activities of the minister in meeting with interested groups, fishermen and ministers.
On April 17 the minister met in Winnipeg with the provincial ministers responsible for fisheries for the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Ontario and the Northwest Territories. On the same day in Winnipeg he had a meeting with Kip Thompson and other representatives of northern Manitoba fishermen. On April 10 in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, the minister met with Don Cadegan, president of Highland Fisheries. On the same day in Cape Breton he met with Arthur LeBlanc, president of the United Maritime Fishermen. Again on the same day in Cape Breton he met with representatives of the processors of Richmond Fisheries, Isle Madame Fishermen's Co-op, the Louisbourg division of National Sea Products, Peter Mullen's Limited, H. Hopkins Limited in Louisbourg and the Highland Fisheries Limited of Glace Bay. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. I have several pages of this timetable which the minister has already tabled.
This motion alleges lack of consultation. What I have done is to describe the minister's activities during an approximate 30-day period. The minister has already said that holding meetings does not necessarily mean that an agreement is achieved. However, this motion condemns the minister for his lack of consultation with the provinces and with Fisheries groups. ! think that the material that he has tabled today refutes that charge.
Comments were made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) regarding the problems we have had with the implementation of the 200-mile limit and with the injunction taken out in the United States. I agree that the hon. member is quite correct when he indicates that we have had problems.
a (1742)
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich brought up the point that we do not patrol our 200-mile limit. Perhaps we
Fisheries
should take a look at what happened in Canada with the 200-mile limit, as well as what has happened in other countries as they have implemented 200-mile limits. Perhaps it would be useful to compare the experiences in other parts of the world, developments in fisheries management in other 200-mile zones of jurisdiction, with the Canadian experience. A number of examples come to mind in various parts of the world where the movement is toward centralization and the development of larger units to deal with fisheries questions.
The European Economic Community is continuing to develop a common fisheries policy to deal with questions in areas such as the North Sea, where the zones of a number of the member states and non-member states border on each other, and where serious conservation problems have developed in the free-for-all which existed before the community's extension of jurisdiction to 200 miles. Now the EEC acts as spokesman for its member states in fisheries matters when dealing with other European countries and foreign nations abroad.
This is not to say the problems which existed before the implementation of the 200-mile limit have been solved. However, the EEC is establishing or attempting to establish a common fisheries policy. Anyone who reads the European press will be aware of the questions involving the proposed exclusive fishing zones for Britain and Ireland. Despite these internal problems, however, it is true to say that the European Economic Community is moving toward a centralized system of fisheries.
In the Antipodes, a large number of South Pacific island states including Australia and New Zealand are working toward a system of central management of fisheries resources in an area which encompasses many thousands of square miles of ocean. In West Africa there are problems in fisheries management due to the very narrow strips of water that have been created by the 200-mile limit. In Latin America, particularly on the Pacific coast, the Latin American states recognize their common interest.
One of the few examples of where a centralization of fisheries has not taken place is within the United States. Prior to the United States extension of fisheries jurisdiction on March 1, 1977, the individual coastal states enjoyed control over fisheries resources out to three miles from shore, with the federal government having control in the contiguous zone from 3 to 12 miles.
In the United States, extension of fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles was accomplished through the initiative of congress, which in 1976 passed the fisheries conservation and management act that was to take effect on March 1, 1977. This legislation placed the prime responsibility for ocean fisheries management in the hands of eight regional fisheries management councils. The councils' mandate was to review all aspects of fisheries management, including regulations, total allowable catches, United States harvesting capacity, and surpluses available to foreign nations.
The membership of the regional councils is determined by the United States Secretary of Commerce. In the make-up of the councils, there is substantial input ranging from a reliance
5338

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
in some cases on academics and professional fisheries managers to relying in other cases on substantial input from the fishing industry.
Each regional council has a great deal of independence. This independence has caused some of the problems which were mentioned by the hon. member in his earlier remarks. This independence has caused a problem not only in American waters, but also in dealing with other countries. These difficulties flow from the fact that while the Secretary of Commerce must make determinations on fisheries management matters based on regional council recommendations, it is the Secretary of State who is charged with the negotiation of bilateral agreements. Sometimes we think we have created a bureaucratic nightmare. Can one imagine the bureaucratic nightmare which exists in the United States today in fisheries management?
I would dare to suggest the flexibility of the United States is severely limited by the determinations made by the Secretary of Commerce. This has created significant problems for Canada. These problems arise not only from the fact that regional councils are charged with defending local rather than national interests, but also from the fact that United States legislation did not provide for any special relationship with its two closest neighbours, namely, Canada and Mexico.
Therefore, the United States is experiencing a fragmentation of fisheries management. There is no guarantee the regional councils will carry out the policies of the national government in respect of fisheries. The current problems being experienced between Canada and the United States are indicative of this phenomenon. Both countries have attempted to develop rational management measures for fish stocks of mutual interest.
Ambassador Cadieux for Canada and Ambassador Cutler for the United States were appointed and instructed to report to both governments by October 1977 on the principles of a comprehensive settlement, and to develop the substance of an ad referendum agreement for submission to both governments, if possible, by the end of 1977. The two special negotiators succeeded in agreeing on a set of principles encompassing fisheries and hydro-carbon resource arrangements, and an interim joint report was submitted to the governments on October 14, 1977. In the next phase, efforts were directed at securing agreement on precise boundary lines, the exact terms of an over-all bilateral fisheries agreement, and the institutionalization of a system for shared access to hydro-carbons in the boundary areas.
Since October 1977, the negotiators, their officials and advisers have met regularly in both countries. In fact, negotiations are taking place in Ottawa today between Mr. Cadieux and Mr. Cutler. They have consulted closely with their respective provincial state and industry interests. It should be brought out at this time that in these negotiations representatives from the fishing industry processors, UFAWU, trawlers, et cetera, have been a part of the Canadian negotiating team.
I think the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands asked that specific question of the minister. He

referred to the participation of Canadians in the negotiations. Canadians have been very much involved. I can report that they have met on numerous occasions to discuss the Canadian position. Their input is welcome, as their input was welcome at the Law of the Sea conference where Canada had the largest delegation of any nation. Canada's delegation consisted of government experts, experts from the industry and the unions, as well as native fishermen from British Columbia and the Pacific trawlers. In order to have an expert team, we believe the input of those people who are most closely associated with the industry is required.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, can I ask the hon. member to be more specific? Does he have any data as to how many meetings or conferences with the various fishing groups have taken place? Before the terms of the proposed 1977 and 1978 agreements became effective, were they ever submitted to fishermen's organizations, particularly the unions?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I would be pleased to furnish that very extensive information which the hon. member is requesting. I will not furnish it to him orally at this time, but I will do so in writing later. If I may, I should like to continue with my remarks.
By the end of March 1978, a number of key differences remained unresolved. In particular, I am referring to the delimination line in the Gulf of Main-Georges Bank area and several important fisheries questions on both the east and west coasts. However, the negotiators believed that significant progress has been made towards reaching an over-all agreement and they recommended to their governments that they continue their efforts to resolve the outstanding issue in a manner acceptable both to Canada and the U.S.
In addition, they have negotiated an interim reciprocal agreement which will continue reciprocal fishing as previously agreed with new mechanisms over the 1977 agreement for consultations and settlement of disputes, and to help ensure that existing fishing patterns are maintained. These arrangements are to continue in force through 1978 unless superseded by a comprehensive agreement or terminated by either government on 45 days' notice.
The senior negotiators from both countries are now meeting to try to resolve some of the issues that have arisen with respect to the implementation of the interim fisheries agreement. While the execution of a U.S. court injunction that would bar Canadian salmon fishermen from the Washington coast has been indefinitely stayed, problems remain, although we have a temporary solution since the courts have overruled the original decision. The problems include the Swiftsure Banks and allegations that Canadian fishermen in American waters are being harassed.
There is no question that the management of the fish stocks off the coast of British Columbia will be to the benefit of the Canadian fishing industry. I was very interested in the remarks
May 11, 1978

that were made regarding the stand that Canada should take with the United States. I would like to quote the Canadian Press yesterday in reference to comments by Senator Magnuson:
Canadians, he said, already have the best part of the bargain in reciprocal fishing rights since they allow U.S. fishermen to take groundfish off British Columbia while gaining access to more valuable salmon off the state of Washington.
Stating that the 1977 reciprocal fishing arrangement should be left as they are, without making any new concessions to Canada, Magnuson also complained that the U.S. state department has been undermining the intent of congressional action in establishing 200-mile fishing zones.
This is another quote from Senator Magnuson as reported by the Canadian Press:
We wanted to keep all foreigners out... but the state department keeps opening the door.
It would appear from some of the comments made this afternoon that some of our Canadian members of parliament are saying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. parliamentary secretary that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very precise. What I was saying was that it would appear that United States Senators are saying what has been said in our august chamber this afternoon, that somehow Canada is not getting the best of the deal according to some of our people in Canada, whereas in the United States they are not agreeing with the view that Canada is being hard done by.
I would hope that sane heads prevail, that there is calm negotiation rather than gunboat diplomacy and that we do not have to exclude American fishermen from Canadian waters or that Canadian fishermen will be excluded from American waters. The Americans recognize that we are not about to give our resource away and their congress and senate have the same feelings about giving the American resource away. I hope that both negotiating teams will come to a speedy conclusion that will benefit both countries.


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the motion, of course, is one where we condemn-
-the federal Minister of Fisheries for his failure to consult and co-operate with provincial fisheries ministers and fishermen prior to establishing arbitrary rules and regulations which are harmful to the fishermen, and for his failure to develop a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian fishing industry in order to derive maximum advantage for Canadians from the extended jurisdiction.
Let me say at the start that I have a lot of admiration for our Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). I think that of the Liberal ministers of fisheries the present occupant of that post is the best that we have had from that party. I was the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland in 1974 when he was the minister here. The fishing industry had hit rock bottom and it was a question of whether or not it was going to survive. Because of
Fisheries
the minister's policies and other factors, and because of the work that was done in Newfoundland and other provinces, we have come out of that and the fisheries are now on the way up.
The trouble with the minister is that he now thinks he has all the answers. Unfortunately, he has become extremely arbitrary, extremely dictatorial and guaranteed to ruffle the feathers-if not the feathers, the scales-of any provincial minister of fisheries. It is not only of Newfoundland that I speak, it is of the four Atlantic provinces in particular. I do not know how he relates to British Columbia. It is not only a question of politics. The Newfoundland government is a PC government, in New Brunswick it is PC, in P.E.I. it is Liberal, and in Nova Scotia it is Liberal-but it will not be much longer. But even in a province like Nova Scotia we find the premier of that province saying on April 19 in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald'.
The Canadian constitution should be reformed to give the provinces more jurisdiction over fisheries, Premier Gerald Regan said during question period in the legislature yesterday ...
Outside the House, fisheries minister Dan Reid said this is a change all four Atlantic provinces are advocating.
"The whole direction of the fishery and how it affects the province and its economy now rests on the whims of Ottawa."
This is what a Liberal minister said:
He said many problems are created by this lack of control. "We are closer to the scene here and could deal with them more appropriately."
These are Liberal premiers and ministers, Mr. Speaker, saying this because what the federal minister is forgetting is that the fishery is life and death in the Atlantic provinces. Or at least, it is life and death to Newfoundland.
It may be that the fishery contribution to the gross national product is under one per cent, Mr. Speaker, but to Newfoundland it is tremendous. At least 20,000 people are directly employed as fishermen or fish processors out of a work force altogether of some 180,000 people. The indirect and direct employment effect on Newfoundland is gigantic, plus the fact that in three-quarters of the province you cannot live in the communities that are now settled there without a viable fishery. Therefore, we feel, and rightly so, that it must have more say over the fishery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m. I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, when we went for supper I was describing how important the fishery was to Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces, why we resent so much the arrogant attitude of the Minister of Fisheries and why, if this is not
80038-48^2

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
changed and corrected, there is going to be a major confrontation between Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. I pointed out that in Nova Scotia even the Liberal premier and a Liberal minister were very chagrined, disappointed and angry at the relationship.
I have one final quotation from a Halifax newspaper of April 26, where again the fisheries minister of Nova Scotia, Dr. Reid, said:
The federal fisheries department has not honoured its pledge to seek more consultation and co-operation with the provincial fisheries department and local fishermen.
In an interview he went on to say that, despite assurances of closer co-operation during the recent first ministers' conference, the province still has no say in many of the sweeping federal regulations handed down.
Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that in the last ten years in Newfoundland we have got a real department of fisheries. We have a minister of fisheries that knows his stuff. We have a good deputy minister of fisheries and we have a good department. The years of Smallwood neglect are over. They're not dumb-bells, they're not yo-yos, they're not yokels; they're not dumb, ignorant Newfoundlanders who have to do whatever some minister up here in Ottawa tells them. We are sick down there of being treated like that. Not only that, but when it comes to spending the money on the fishery there is considerably more being spent in proportion by the Newfoundland government than is being spent by the Ottawa bureaucrats.
If we just look at the one area of construction of vessels and assistance given for the construction of vessels, last year in Newfoundland the provincial government made $9.2 million available in assistance to fishermen to buy and construct new vessels by way of loans and subsidies. The federal government, this great federal government in Ottawa, spent exactly $600,000 for those purposes in Newfoundland.
In Newfoundland they are also putting their money where their mouths are. They want to be consulted and involved in the fishery. We want to be consulted and involved in the future of our province. We have seen industrial development after industrial development fail. We have seen the fishery come back so that it is going to mean something in our future. We are not satisfied to have the Minister of Fisheries, no matter how good he might be here in Ottawa, deciding the life and death of our province by himself. We are not satisfied. We are not going to put up with it. We are not going to tolerate it. What does the Newfoundland minister of fisheries say about how they have been treated? I quote from the May 9 Daily News:
"We should be given a greater responsibility in the control of our fishery ... right now we are seldom even consulted concerning policy ... I am not content to let a bunch of Upper Canadian bureaucrats dictate how we in Newfoundland should control our resource ..
That was said by the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland. The premier of Newfoundland said the same. In the Evening

Telegram of May 6 the minister of fisheries is quoted as having said:
The Newfoundland government is going to "fight like hell" and take legal action, if necessary, to prove it has a right to have a voice in the management of the fishery resources off the coast of the province.
I do not blame the Newfoundland minister of fisheries. He has been treated abominably, as has been the case with the minister from Nova Scotia. In May of last year our minister of fisheries, Mr. Carter, put a proposal to the federal fisheries people about fisheries development in Newfoundland. In May he had proposals for the landing of additional fish for processing in seasonal plants, how to acquire additional ships and co-operative fishing ventures with the Portuguese, upgrading and expanding the fleet and so on. He was advised by Ottawa in September, I think, that Newfoundland's plan would not be considered on its own merit, but rather it would be considered only in the Atlantic provinces context. In other words, Newfoundland would be permitted by Ottawa to proceed in matters of fisheries development only as it related to and at a pace with the other Atlantic provinces. Is it any wonder they have gone berserk in Newfoundland?
The fishery means more to Newfoundland than any other province and they have been told they have to go along at the snail's pace that some other province might want to go. Proposals of Newfoundland are treated with contempt. Our ministers are treated as though they were office boys and busboys by the federal minister. No wonder the relationship between the minister and his provincial counterparts are exacerbated.
On December 1, 1977, the four Atlantic provinces put in a proposal to the Minister of Fisheries with the collective views of the four provinces. We know there are four disadvantaged provinces, four suppliant provinces, provinces that get the fiscal Kung Fu foot right in the face if they dare raise their voices and do not do what they are told by great Uncle Ottawa. The four provinces put in a proposal on what should happen in fisheries development. It has been treated with scorn, derision and contempt by the Minister of Fisheries as though they are not to be listened to. One of their proposals was that $910 million should be spent over the next ten years to replace the present fishing fleet, $260 million to replace half the inshore fleet because it is becoming obsolete, $500 million to replace half the offshore wetfish trawler fleet, and $150 million for new vessels to start replacing the foreign fishing effort. That is the proposal.
The Minister of Fisheries treats them and their proposal as though it were a case of leprosy, that if this proposal were touched, his hand would fall off, or his fins would fall off, or his tail would fall off. He thinks this is a terrible proposal that these four provinces put in. The minister infers they should be locked up, that they are criminal for what they want to do in expanding the Canadian fishing fleet. The minister says they have to be more conservative, more careful.
The Newfoundland government does not see why the federal minister should refuse to license additional Canadian-controlled vessels to fish in the 200-mile limit while foreign
May 11, 1978

nations are given licences to fish there. There are 500 foreign fishing vessels that have been given licences to fish within our 200-mile limit and the minister says Canadians are not to have additional licences to fish. He pooh-poohs, scoffs, scorns and attacks proposals of the four Atlantic provinces for starting to make preparations to replace existing obsolete trawlers on a ten-year program at $91 million a year.
It is time the members of the fisheries committee or some other appropriate committee had a good look at future policy in the fishery because we are headed on a collision course. I admire the minister for many of the things he has done, as I said earlier before six o'clock. However, he is too stiff-necked, too arrogant and too convinced that he and he alone has the answer. He forgets the fishery is life and death to Newfoundland. We are not going to have our life or death decided by Romeo LeBlanc or any federal politician.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not supposed to use his name; 1 mean the Minister of Fisheries. We are not going to let one man control our destiny and future like that.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put on a charade at the February first ministers' conference and pretended that the provinces would be more involved in these decisions. When I questioned the minister in the fisheries committee a few weeks later, he smiled knowingly as he indicated that nothing was going to be done to follow up that pious protestation of the Prime Minister.
We are upset. This is life and death to Newfoundland. In my own district, one third of the voters live in the rural area. Our rural area depends on the fishery. I am not satisfied to have the Minister of Fisheries of Canada decide on the life and death of the various communities in my constituency.
I wish I had time to give all their names. I could start at Come-By-Chance where the oil refinery used to operate. There is now nothing but the fishery there. Every community in our rural area is dependent on the fishery. In St. John's we have a major fish plant. St. John's itself depends on the fishery. It depends on the rest of the island for its livelihood as a distributing centre and the rest of it. That is why they are so exercised in Newfoundland.
If occasionally someone on the mainland hears of some discontent from the Newfoundland government, they should understand why it is. If the future of Ontario was being decided by one cabinet minister here and he would not listen to the provincial government, you can be assured that the papers would be full of it. We would hear of nothing else. It would rage on for weeks. It would be in the Globe and Mail on the first page, the second page and the editorial page. It would be in the Toronto Star, the Toronto this and the Toronto that. That is all we would hear about in the rest of Canada if that were the case.
One man has determined the destiny of Newfoundland. They are told to keep their mouths shut in Newfoundland as
Fisheries
though they are ignorant cuffs that should not be heard. We are certainly not noticed in the mainland press.
If the Minister of Fisheries is to be a successful minister, he will have to change his ways. The fisheries committee will need to have a look at the future of fisheries development. There is much to talk about, but we never have enough time to do it. If I were allowed to occupy the time between now and 10:30, I could maybe deal with it half adequately.
We have a longiiner fleet in Newfoundland. The Minister of Fisheries says there is no need to replace any of those longlin-ers. There used to be a 35 per cent federal subsidy on longiiner construction of vessels in Newfoundland. The minister has cut it out. The Newfoundland government has gone ahead with the building of 20 longliners from 55 feet to 65 feet. Today it costs $250,000 for a 55-foot vessel and $350,000 to $400,000 for a 65-foot vessel.
The Minister of Fisheries cut out the 35 per cent federal subsidy. The province is paying a 15 per cent subsidy and is giving loans for 95 per cent at 3 per cent interest. If the federal government does not come through, the poor province of Newfoundland has to put up the other 35 per cent to get these boats in the hands of the fishery.
The Minister of Fisheries says that more longliners are not needed. The government last year was abused by the Minister of Fisheries of Canada for having the audacity and daring to build a longiiner on its own. There were 120 applications for those 20 longliners, 60 of which were found to be qualified. Only 20 of that 60 will be able to get a boat. What is the federal government going to do? The minister suggested in his recent speech to the Fisheries Council of Canada on May 3, 1978, that he is going to cut out the subsidies that they used to pay on boats. He said at page 16 of his address:
Will Atlantic fishing be profitable enough so that, as in B.C., we can do away with all boat-building subsidies?
He has already done away with them. He is just flying a balloon there. The Newfoundland trawler fleet needs replacements over the next ten years. The minister is doing nothing but pooh-poohing the idea. A solemn commitment was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) in connection with the Cape Sambro. There is still owing $930,000 in federal payments. The minister has to get around that and get it paid or the commitment by the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be broken.
What is wrong with the federal bureaucracy? In my district of Arnold's Cove, there is a proposal from National Sea Products Limited. They want a million dollars in loans from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. They want the ordinary DREE assistance for job creation to expand their fish plant in Arnold's Cove. They are going to take the herring and process it to the final finished product so that we will not be shipping it out in bulk to Norway and buying it back in little bottles with little bits of herring in them for 50 times the price.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
This was the most successful proposal ever made to DREE. DREE complains that it cannot get enough proposals for private enterprise in Newfoundland and that is why they are so low in the payments they make under their program. Yet that proposal has been in since October and three or four weeks ago I received a silly reply from the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Lessard) saying that he doesn't yet know whether the fishery resource can stand the expansion of this plant which is going to create 67 new jobs at Arnold's Cove in the Come-By-Chance area where the unemployment rate, I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, is about 50 per cent.
I ask the Minister of Fisheries to give the minister for DREE a boot right where he ought to be booted and get that proposal out. Get this extension to the fish plant going at Arnold's Cove in Newfoundland. The hon. gentleman is closer to the Minister for DREE than I am or I would give him the boot myself. I have to use sweetness and light because I am in the opposition; I cannot use the harsh tactics I would otherwise use to expose this bureaucratic nonsense-that it takes five or six months to approve a proposal like this when money is lashed out by DREE in every direction in other provinces.
The German firm, Nordsee, Mr. Speaker, made a proposal to the FIRB-the Foreign Investment Review Board-at the beginning of December, 1977 to take over a 51 per cent interest in Ocean Harvesters Limited in Harbour Grace, and it has not been dealt with yet. No decision has been made five months later. The Minister of Fisheries says he is opposed to it. He is so rude, he is so ignorant in connection with the proposal, that he refuses even to see the Nordsee company or its representatives. He says he is not going to have any foreign capital investment in the fishery.
Well, this is a new departure, Mr. Speaker. The minister had better look at the figures and see how capital is flying out of Canada before he starts preventing foreign capital from coming in to our fishing industry. The minister makes vague statements such as this-I quote from his speech of May 3:
Foreign capital investment need not and should not become a major feature of the Canadian fishing industry on the east coast or on the west.
Note the word "major". Who is arguing that it should be major? Here is a German firm that has the marketing expertise, one of the largest fishing companies in the world. It wants to invest in this plant in Harbour Grace and put five trawlers there. It will give year-round employment there and put the plant on its feet in an area of heavy unemployment in Newfoundland. Yet because of some ideological reason the Minister of Fisheries says he won't give them a licence for their trawlers. Who does he think he is? Does he think he is God? Does he think these hundreds of people in Harbour Grace should be denied year-round livelihood because of some ideological reason the minister does not even explain properly? He is not going to let our zone be taken over by the back door, he says, by foreign companies borrowing our flag to catch our fish. They don't need to borrow our flag to catch the fish. There are 500 of them with licences now. What utter tripe and nonsense, Mr. Speaker. "I do not want so see the Maple Leaf become the world's fishing flag", the minister says. What has

that to do with it? I say the minister should finish this up. His deskmate just up the row here had a different attitude. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) said, and I quote from the Globe and Mail of March 25:
Trade and Commerce Minister Jack Horner has said that the Newfoundland Government has a "pretty compelling case" and indicated that the Foreign Investment Review Agency, which is now considering the application, should look favourably on it.
That's what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said, while the Minister of Fisheries says he has refused to give them a licence. The Newfoundland government now has a deal in which it has said that, in addition to many other safeguarding conditions, it is going to take a 6 per cent interest so that the German company cannot control Ocean Harvesters Limited. It will be controlled by Canadians. And yet we still have this stubborn attitude by the Minister of Fisheries, who does not explain very clearly why this proposal is to be prevented at all costs. You wonder that we are puzzled down in Newfoundland by all these peculiar things which are happening.
We are also puzzled in my district, in Bay Bulls, as to why a $3 million centre has not been started yet. In the December 5, 1977 Daily News the regional director of fisheries said the new multi-million-dollar marine service centre was going to be under construction early in 1978. They were going to station their fisheries vessels there. However, he is now saying that the planning is going ahead, that there should be some evidence of work on that facility before the end of 1978. Well, the evidence is not strong enough, Mr. Speaker. There is a dirty suspicion that it is not going ahead as quickly as it was. I won the by-election in 1976, and the people of Bay Bulls and I don't like it. I want that job under way very shortly, Mr. Speaker. Never mind the planning. I want the proof. I want them to carry out the plans that were announced for Bay Bulls.
The province seeks permission to lease freezer ships. The province has to ask the permission of the Minister of Fisheries of Canada to do anything you can think of, Mr. Speaker. In order to overcome the glut problem during peak periods in the cod fishery, the Newfoundland government wants to lease some freezer ships to help take the surplus fish. They haven't got an answer yet from the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. He could continue with unanimous consent. Is there consent to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will have to cool it. Now, I do not wish to be unfair to the Minister of Fisheries. Quite seriously, I said I think he is the best Liberal Minister of Fisheries we have had since 1949. He has done many good things for the fishery. But, Mr. Speaker, he is on the verge of spoiling that very fine record with his attitude toward Newfoundland and the Atlantic provinces, for the very reasons I have described here. It is life and death to us and we are not going to leave our life or our death in the fishery in the hands of one minister in Ottawa. He has got to share his authority and his power. He has got to start a process of real consulta-
May 11, 1978

tion. He has got to show less arrogance. He has got to start listening to the provincial ministers. They are not dumb-dumbs or dodos. They have something to say and we have good departments of fisheries in our provinces-all four of them. We can see the old dreams of industrial glory are gone. They have gone down, and everybody has come back to the realization that it was the fishery which originally caused the settlement of Newfoundland, that it is what will save Newfoundland, if it is to be saved, as well as the offshore minerals which we trust will come in over the next 10 or 15 years.
This is why the minister has to learn to change his attitude, and it is why I suggest that the House of Commons fisheries committee should spend a couple of weeks with the minister and his officials, and with the provincial minister and his officials, and have a good look at the future policies of our fisheries and see if we can agree. Let us let it all hang out and get some of these problems solved, and get the fishery on a proper basis with real co-operation between the five governments.


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this special debate with pride and enthusiasm but also with some frustration and regret. I rise with pride because I come from a fishing industry family, because I know and respect and have fought for the needs of the fishing industry, and because I belong to a government which has done more for Canada's fishermen in the last four years than has been done in any previous period in our history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Iona Campagnolo: Extension of the fishery limit to 200 miles has added impetus to upgraded search and rescue capability and a $350 million enhancement program designed to double our catch of salmonoid species on the Pacific coast. Perhaps most important, a strong and informed and concerned Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) has been an effective advocate for all fishermen in this country. All these things have combined in recent years, Mr. Speaker, to make the prospects for the fishing industry look exceedingly bright for fishermen from Newfoundland to the Queen Charlotte Islands and from Yarmouth to Kincolith.
I also rise in frustration and regret, Mr. Speaker, because it is very clear that the real and serious problems which do exist in the fishing industry and in the relations of our country with the United States have been blown entirely out of proportion by those with a vested interest in sensationalism and in division. In the face of the undeniable proof of this government's understanding of the needs of the fishing industry and its remarkable commitment to meeting those needs, there are still some who say that we do not understand and that we are actively seeking to sell out to the Americans. This is not good logic. In fact this is not logic at all. I think I need only remind the House of our tough, reasoned approach in the current marine boundary and fish management negotiations and of the extensive consultations among the federal government, provincial governments and representatives of the fishing industry to put those silly conclusions that follow from such logic to rest.
Fisheries
I would like to deal with the aspects of the current marine boundaries negotiations which are of particular relevance to the Pacific coast, especially to the halibut fishery. But I want first of all to respond directly to the Conservative motion suggesting that there has been inadequate consultation between our negotiators and representatives of the fishing industry.
In less than a year there have been six plenary sessions of the joint U.S.-Canada boundary negotiations attended by so many industry and provincial representatives that one special observer I spoke to, sir, referred to it as a mini-United Nations. The groups from British Columbia which attended these successful sessions included the following: the Fisheries Association of British Columbia, representing many fish processors in the province, the Pacific Trailers' Association, the Pacific Gillnetters' Association, the Central Native Cooperative, representing the native people who have made the Bella Bella Cannery successful, the Native Brotherhood of B.C., the Prince Rupert Fishermen's Co-operative, The United Fishermen's and Allied Workers' Union; the Co-operative Fishermen's Guild, the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, the Nishga Tribal Council, The Association of B.C. Independent Fishermen, and the Fishing Vessel Owners of B.C.
In addition to the six plenary sessions, each of these groups has had the opportunity to participate in smaller sessions dealing with specific aspects of the fisheries agreement, those dealing with particular fish stocks or particular geographical areas.
When certain representatives were unable to attend sessions because of commitments elsewhere-for instance, if they were out fishing-the consultative process was held for them so that they could join with the negotiators. These special arrangements were made many times. Our ambassador, Mr. Cadieux, has done so personally at least three times to my knowledge, and his closest assistants have done exactly the same thing. It was only on April 20 that a party of four negotiating members of the team came to a public meeting in Prince Rupert organized by the Prince Rupert Labour Council and consulted at length.
In addition to industry consultations the federal negotiators have met frequently in many types of forums with representatives of the marine resources branch of the B.C. department of recreation and conservation. To imply that these people do not know how to negotiate I really believe is a shocking suggestion for the opposition to make. Speaking of that consultation, I have here three enormous pieces of paper-


Reginald Cyril Symes: Just enormous.


Iona Campagnolo: -which outline the consultations in minute detail by hour, date and time. Even the hon. member opposite could understand them. In any event, the tone of these meetings has been remarkably friendly and businesslike.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Read them out, honey.

May 11, 1978
Fisheries


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe we have to have sexist interruptions from the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams).
During these sessions the participants know that important work is being done. I would also like to point out for hon. members opposite that the salmonoid enhancement program is one which will benefit all west coasters. There are regulations to be thought of with regard to the Indian food fishery, which is a very high priority of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Another priority is to ensure the safety of vessels during particularly difficult fisheries, such as the herring roe fishery just completed. Involved in these meetings were 17 private organizations and at least five provincial ministries.
Since the beginning of this year, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has had 14 separate meetings with industry representatives on the west coast. This record of briefing and consultation speaks for itself. The minister, his officials and the special negotiators charged with the difficult task of charting new marine boundaries and of ensuring the proper joint management of fish resources have been thorough in their efforts to consult the people they represent.
As always, there are those who apparently feel that they stand to gain politically or otherwise by spreading the patent lie that the Canadian government is selling out the interests of its citizens, and there are those who apparently delight in creating division and disunity for motives which are unclear to responsible Canadians.
I hope, now that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has put to rest the concerns of the opposition as to whether there will be an election-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He hasn't the courage.


Iona Campagnolo: -those delighters in division will take off their cloaks of hypocrisy and help us deal in a positive and constructive manner with the real problems we face.
We face a number of problems with respect to Canadian-American fishing relations, and we face them because certain elements of the American fishing industry are clearly trying to subvert the intent of the 1978 interim fisheries agreement reached between our two countries, an agreement which provides for compensation for Canadian fishermen who suffered losses as a result of the failure of the Americans to live up to the terms of the 1977 interim agreement.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You can make a good speech; why do you want to read?


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. gentleman opposite should take note of the fact that his friend, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), said that we must remember that sweetness and light are the watchwords for all oppositionists.
In any event, I want to go back to the interim agreement. Certainly it was an unfortunate situation in 1977 and, if actions rather than threats are taken in violation of the interim agreement, then Canadian fishing interests will suffer. Cer-

tainly the interests of our fishermen must be protected. This government will protect them, as any responsible observer will agree that it has been doing all along. But is shrill rhetoric and painting images of sell-out and the threatening of a fish war the most responsible and productive way to go about resolving the situation? Nobody wins in a fish war, least of all the fish, on which the future earnings of all fishermen depend. The issue is too important and too complex for the simple slogans and scare stories that some parties seem to prefer to consultation and advice.
As an example of the complexities involved I wish briefly to discuss the problems faced by just one of the fisheries which may be affected by American failure to honour the interim agreement. The 1978 halibut fishing season opens next Monday, May 15, and already the boats have set out from Prince Rupert to the waters off the Alaska panhandle and into Dixon Entrance. It is a small but important fishery off Alaska, with 30 to 40 vessels and some 300 fishermen taking part. It is both historic and important to the north, and it is an international fishery. In the coming year Canadian fishermen are expected to land halibut from Alaskan waters worth approximately $4.7 million. American fishermen could land halibut from Canadian waters worth about $700,000. In other words, the potential loss to Canadian fishermen this year, if they were denied access to the U.S. zone, would be in the amount of approximately $4 million.
Clearly, those who speak eagerly about a fish war are not doing so with the best interests of our halibut fishermen in mind. If, indeed, worse should come to worst and we should decide that we must terminate the interim fisheries agreement because of American failure to abide by its terms, then our halibut fishermen would be among the first, and unfortunately, the worst, losers. They would have to be-and I am assured that they would be-compensated by our government for their losses, but surely they would prefer and surely we would all prefer that they be out on the fishing waters they have traditionally fished.
The elements of the current interim agreement which some U.S. fishermen insist on ignoring-causing us to retaliate-are those relating to protection and management of our own fishery. The need for conservation is clearly evidenced by the need to increase the take of valuable protein from the sea and to provide employment for a strong fisheries industry on the west coast.
As fish have the annoying habit of swimming from the territorial waters of one country to those of another, and as fishermen apparently have trouble, on occasion, charting exactly where an ocean boundary is when the line is on the map and not on the water, it is clearly understood that international agreements are needed to protect this resource, and we must have the assurance that individual fishermen will live up to those agreements. We do not want to be without an
May 11, 1978

agreement with the Americans, but an agreement which is not interpreted in the same way by both sides may be worse than none at all. Our course is clear. We want to have an agreement. The fisheries resource needs the protection of a universally accepted agreement. The fact that we are not prepared to sign an agreement which does not offer these assurances is ample proof that no sell-out has ever been considered nor, indeed, ever will be.
There is one more aspect of the halibut fishery to which I would like to return for a moment, and that is the question of the A-B line, the Dixon Entrance portion of the boundary between Canada and the Alaska panhandle. The halibut fishery takes place in Dixon Entrance in waters on both sides of the A-B line. There is legitimate concern on the part of Canadian fishermen that American officials may act on the American position that the A-B line is a disputed boundary and seize Canadian vessels within three miles of that line.
While I do not expect this to happen, especially if cooler heads prevail and inflammatory statements and actions are subdued, I know our government is aware of the situation, is monitoring it very closely, and is prepared to offer full assistance to any Canadian vessel should it be illegally detained by American authorities.
What concerns me more than this, however, are the ill-founded and potentially dangerous rumours being circulated by those who either should know better or perhaps feel they stand to gain in some mysterious way by being irresponsible. Perhaps their gain will be political. The rumours indicate that Canada has acceded to American demands to shift the A-B line south. In the clearest possible language, such reports are not true. The only possible reason for movement of the A-B line would be if the Americans offered us something better, an irresistible offer of something better for Canadian fishermen in return. They have not done this, and consequently we have made no agreement to move the A-B line. The likelihood is slim indeed that we ever will.
I am concerned about this because among the people spreading such patently false rumours is one person who has acted as an adviser to the Canadian negotiating team, one who has been the recipient of confidential briefing information and who is aware of what the Canadian position is. This person is a regular guest on CBC news and knows full well that no agreement has been made to move the A-B line. Yet for whatever misplaced reason, this person continues to foster this myth, along with others of clearer political motivation. That can only weaken the position of our negotiating team.
This motion is about consultation and the alleged lack of consultation by the government with parties concerned about the future of our fishing industry. This motion is utter nonsense. I suggest a little more responsibility and serious concern is needed on the part of some hon. members opposite.
Mir. Woolliams: More reading.
Fisheries


Iona Campagnolo: The hon. member opposite seems to have had a bubbly dinner. In any event, it is a lovely spring day, and I am sure he enjoyed it. However, hon. members opposite seem to think they have a vested interest in destroying the effectiveness of the Canadian bargaining position. We are all Canadians, and the best bargaining position for Canada is something which cannot be played with and toyed with in the House.
Just as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) proved himself to be a speculator's delight in his recent open-mouthed efforts to embarrass the government by single-handedly weakening the international credibility of the Canadian dollar, again we are faced with a position where some of our allegedly concerned individuals are in fact destructive tinkerers. Instead of attempting to single out the need for consultation as a government weakness, I suggest opposition parties should look carefully at their own performance in the House and try for the first time to fit into their personal vocabularies words like "co-operation" and "responsibility", and not criticize the full consultation which the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has initiated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, in spite of what the minister has said, and in spite of what the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) said earlier this afternoon, I have a group of clippings which indicate that there is no reasonable consultation, and if there is, it is after the fact rather than before.
An article in the Ottawa Citizen dated May 6, 1978 reads as follows:
Federal Fisheries Minister Romeo LeBlanc promised Friday to reconsider controversial regulations recently placed on Bay of Fundy scallop Fishermen.
Also his success is illustrated in the following headline, "Cdn. boats banned from U.S. West coast". Another headline reads, "Interim deal 'not binding' ". "Provinces still ask for power", "LeBlanc to review issue", and "Nfld. wants local fisheries control" are other headlines which I can use as examples.
I could go on, but I will not bore the House as time is of the essence at this particular moment. I suppose this evening's news gave the basic philosophical reason as to why this motion was brought forth. Although it does not particularly apply to the minister, it applies to the practices of the government in general. When Mrs. Ostry spoke tonight in order to receive her publicity, she stated that it was one thing to consult, it was one thing for people to make suggestions, but it did not necessarily mean the government had to take the suggestions. Perhaps a slight change in the phraseology of the motion is required. Perhaps hon. members opposite would care to amend it. But basically the consultative process has not functioned effectively or amicably between the Government of Canada and the various fishing ministries across the nation.
The predecessor to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has been criticized and blamed at various times in the House, but he initiated one program which was well worth while. It gave this House more information about the fishing

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
industry than it had gained in 25 years prior to the 1972-74 period. At that time, the minister of fisheries brought before the standing committee representatives of the seiners' associations, the weir fishermen's associations, the B.C. Fishing Association, the Newfoundland Fishing Association, the freshwater people from central Canada, and others. These people came before the committee and presented their briefs. We considered their problems. We were making an element of progress toward the solution of those problems.
This seemed to be embarrassing to the present minister. He does not want to see fishermen before the committee. He does not want the House of Commons to have the truth. He does not want the attitude of some members of the fishing industry toward his high-handed handling of this very important industry to be known. Since he has become minister, not a fisherman has had a voice before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. We are kept with our blinders on.


An hon. Member:: It is not true.


Mr. Whiteway:: It is true.


Fred Alward McCain: I may be in error only once since 1974. Perhaps they appeared once. It can be checked out and I stand to be corrected. I do not object to that. It was the general practice in 1972 to 1974. If fishermen have appeared before the committee to discuss their problems, it would be the exception since and not the rule as it was before. It was a good practice. It is the practice of virtually every other committee of the House. It is the practice of the Standing Committee on Agriculture to hear representations from the horticultural council and from the Federation of Agriculture. Why do we not hear from the fishermen in committee?
The minister has been aloof, inflexible and autocratic. He wants a maximum of organization and a minimum of constraint. The constraints appear in the fact that one cannot get a licence, and that people fish according to regulations which are very constrained. That does not work. The minister brought this motion on himself by creating inflexible situations, as well as by the unreasonable regulations which he has imposed at all levels of the fishing industry.
I should like to refer to a speech which the minister gave before the Fisheries Council of Canada. In part it reads as follows:
At a time of easy sales and of trade advantage for the dollar, I can understand those who feel that government has no business in the marketing plans of the nation. That is not my view. I have constantly insisted on the need for a strong Canadian presence in fish markets.
By that he meant a strong Canadian government presence. It continues:
We stand in the position of becoming the number one fish exporters in the world, or the owner of the world's largest fish warehouses.
We have had example after example of criticism by the Auditor General of the performance of Crown corporations in general. We have had particular criticism of two Crown corporations that are dealing specifically and solely with the

marketing of fish products from this nation. Both have been criticized and are under the scrutiny, to some degree, of the committee of the House of Commons. That committee chose in its wisdom to treat the matter firmly but briefly in the best interests of the fishing industry. I plead with the minister; let us take the proper position of government in respect of the marketing of this or any other commodity. Let us not get any further into Crown corporations marketing fish products. Do we want to have another AECL? Do we want another situation in which the fishermen do not know where their money has gone or why it has gone to international sales organizations in this world? That is a wrong position for governments to take.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: There are those who say this is the only way, but I find in the main that they have never sat behind a desk to conduct international trade in a multitude of countries. I have found that those who have sat in a managerial position and who understand the finesse that is needed to market products on an international basis are not those who say that the government should do the business. Again, I give to the fishermen the example of AECL. Just beware before you get involved in further Crown corporations.
The government should involve itself in the marketing process, but only to a degree. The government has at its disposal information which is not available to probably a single processor, and certainly not to a single fisherman or group of fishermen or fishermen's co-operatives. The government has that information which should be assimilated and put forward to all levels of the industry in an intelligent form which everybody can understand. The fishermen should know on a daily or weekly basis what the international markets of the world or the domestic markets of Canada or the United States will pay for a pound of fish. The fishermen should and must know this, and so should those who are marketing fish, whether they be brokers, processors or engaged in some other capacity in processing and marketing.
The Department of Agriculture does just this. It circulates market information so that at every level of the agricultural industry there is an understanding of what is the price today and the potential tomorrow. That is important and the government should co-operate with industry in this regard.
The government should activate the trade commissions of this country in the one hundred or more countries in which they are located. Those trade commissioners should be told that, as fish is one of our major potential exports, as the minister has said, and I agree, they should get up out of their plush-lined chairs and get out and sell agriculture products, fish products and manufactured products. They should be told that is their job, that they should find out what is the potential in their markets, what is the price there, and send that information back home to advise our people what is available in those areas. That is what the government should do to help everybody.
May 11, 1978

1 do not think one needs to expand on that. The government in virtually every aspect of Canadian business has been negligent as it has tried to expand the markets for Canadian goods and services world wide, and it has been particularly negligent in promoting the sale of agricultural and fish products.
The statistics which come to hand would indicate we have a declining catch of quite a number of species important to the Canadian fishing industry. The fisherman is asking why we have this declining catch and does not have the answer. The research scientist does not seem to have the answer. When you go to the research stations around this nation the scientists cannot give you the exact answer. The fishermen are asking questions which I think should be answered. Is the answer that the stocks are declining? If a stock is declining, is that because there are too many Canadian licences or are we granting too many foreign licences? Is the Canadian fisherman getting enough licences for the stocks that exist or could there be more of them so we can increase the catch in that way? Could we cut back some-not cut out but cut back-on quantities which are extended within our 200-mile limit to other nations? Is there too little surveillance? Perhaps there are not too many licences issued to foreign fishermen, but is there enough surveillance? Do we know now any better than before what the foreign fleet is catching?
Is there too much incidental catch? We do know that for some reason or other in an area where salmon fishing is not legal you can get Atlantic salmon in any restaurant between Montreal and Sydney. You cannot legally fish salmon for sale, but you can sell incidental catch. The people who are interested in the salmon industry want to know how come there is such a major supply of incidentally caught salmon which you can eat in the restaurants of this nation. The Government of Canada is still paying the commercial salmon fishermen not to fish, yet there is still salmon for sale. Is it correct, as rumour would suggest, that we do have an organized salmon sales organization? Is it correct that if you catch thirty salmon incidentally in a net today there is no problem selling them beneficially before nightfall? That is more than a rumour and it requires investigation by the minister and his staff.
What we do know is that while the minister is continuing to pay millions of dollars so that commercial salmon fishermen do not fish there is no surveillance along the rivers and streams which effectively prevents commercial poaching structures that exist in the fresh water system of Atlantic Canada and eastern Quebec. Is there a comparable poaching problem in the salt water nearby the shores of eastern Canada? It would seem that there may well be.
Why are there declining stocks and declining catches? The fishermen's income is not that bad. As a matter of fact, in most instances the income is very good. However, I do think Canada should be concerned about the decline in the pounds of fish caught, and the minister should be doing his best within market capabilities to see that we recover the poundage of catch we had so we can get back into fishing those people who have left in the last ten years.
Fisheries
The minister suggested how great the industry is. He mentioned the wrong era. In the era he mentioned of the 1950s and the 1960s a man could get assistance from the Government of Canada in the form of a subsidy to buy a boat. He could get a licence, and in spite of the fact that prices were lower the fishermen often paid for a $300,000, $400,000 or $500,000 seiner in three, four or five years with special concessions from the income tax branch, also granted by the government.
Today you could not afford to build a boat if you wanted to, because you could not get a subsidy. If you did build a boat, you could not get a licence as you could in former days, and it is highly improbable that you could get a special permit from the department of internal revenue in order to pay off the cost of that boat in a short period of time. The circumstances which made that an expansion era in the fishing industry in the Bay of Fundy have now ended. You cannot get a licence and you cannot buy a boat. The fishermen are getting more money but their seines cost three times as much, their nets for weirs cost three times as much and fuel costs more than three times as much. The number of subsidies is down and the amount of income tax is up. It is just about time the Government of Canada took a long, hard look at the real income of some of these fishermen. We have to get back into the fishing industry and we have to issue more licences.
We have got to allow people to improve their boats, restore a reasonable level of subsidy from the Government of Canada, and become more aware of the consultative processes that are necessary so that the federal and provincial governments can co-operate in the planning of a resource which in Atlantic Canada's mind is as much theirs as is the oil of Alberta. The one belongs to the one as much as the one belongs to the other. You cannot regulate the oil of Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia. You can tax it to death, and the government just about has, but still maintains control. The Minister of Fisheries is determined that he will maintain absolute control of the water resources of fish, minerals and whatever else may be under the surface. To a degree that is inexcusable and unacceptable. As long as he wishes to use that high-handed authority of his, there will not be contentment on the subject anywhere in Atlantic Canada.


An hon. Member:: I can refute that on the grounds of what I heard last week when I was in the maritimes.


Fred Alward McCain: I wish you would. You were not that well accepted down there last week, were you? You ought to try that round again. I can tell the hon. member right now that New Brunswick wants control of its oil and fish, if any, and he is fully aware of that as well. Just ask your minister to treat the fish, minerals and oil, if any, in the same way as in Alberta.
The minister has refused to accept that we should even have one trawler with freezing capacity. It seems awfully funny to me that this would not be practicable in Canada, and I want to tell the House why. The licence goes to a Japanese boat which

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
sails clear across the Pacific Ocean and either around the tip of South America or through the Panama Canal and up the Atlantic seaboard of North America, and it fishes those fish which would not be profitable for Canada. Having travelled that far it is still profitable. I want an explanation, and a detailed explanation, as to why that boat would not be used profitably if it was Canadian owned. It is a very fragile story that the minister told us this afternoon in respect to that facet of the fishing structure.
In view of the number of people who would like to express their views in this debate, I am not going to go any further tonight. As the member from Newfoundland stated, if you had until midnight tonight you would not have said it all, and you could not have said it all. I have said enough to prove that the consultative process is necessary, that a comprehension of the industry in the ministry is necessary, that both are lacking and that the consultation is after the fact and conducted in bad feeling, as it was in Nova Scotia, as it is in Newfoundland and as it has been in eastern Canada, central Canada and western Canada. The fishing industry in Canada cannot reach the peak it should as long as a process of autocratic confrontation or consultation after the fact exists. The irritation remains. If that policy does not come to an end, the Canadian fishing industry cannot achieve the level of success which it deserves and which the fishermen in particular deserve.


Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in this debate. First of all, I want to correct the record on at least one thing that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said. He said there were no more subsidies on fishing vessels. That, at least in my province, is not true. The subsidies still exist. There is a 35 per cent subsidy still in effect on boats between 30 feet and 45 feet and boats between 60 feet and 65 feet. As a matter of fact, an additional amount of $250,000 was put into Newfoundland from Canada Works funds this past winter for job creation purposes. The subsidy still exists on vessels and longliners, plus there is still a subsidy from industry, trade and commerce on vessels over 75 feet.
This motion seems to have more to do with personalities than with the substance of policy. I do not know if that is because the opposition feels that the policy is good as it stands-I certainly do-but I feel the emphasis is on personality and the failure to consult. But even there I find an ambivalence, because the hon. member for St. John's West began and ended by saying that this was the greatest Minister of Fisheries since 1949, excluding Tory ministers of which there have not been very many since 1949. However, in the middle of his speech he said everything that this minister has done was wrong. He has not done anything right. I cannot see how that is a consistent argument.
One of the arguments the opposition is making is that the minister is failing to consult with the provinces. I heard the phrase this evening, "We are not going to be dictated to by the Ottawa bureaucracy". If you look at the bureaucracy within the fisheries service in Ottawa, you will find that a great many of them are in fact Newfoundlanders, people who lived by the

sea, grew up by the sea and made themselves expert in fishing. Some of our top negotiators and policy makers within the fisheries department are from Newfoundland.


An hon. Member:: Name some.


Bill Rompkey: I can name them but it is not the practice to name such people in the House. I will be glad, however, to send the hon. member a list of these people within the fishery service who I am talking about. In fact, somebody last week from Atlantic Canada said, "We are no longer going to be dictated to by the Newfoundland mafia in Ottawa." Check your papers and you will find the quote, "Newfoundland mafia". Hon. members cannot have it both ways. You cannot say on the one hand that you are being dictated to by a foreign bureaucracy in Ottawa when in fact there is adequate evidence that fisheries policy, apart form the political level, is being constructed by Newfoundlanders, born and bred and well educated.
The opposition is talking about consultation and the minister's failure to consult. My friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) put on the record reams and reams-and I have them in front of me now-of consultations that the ministry of fisheries held. I do not hear the president of the fishermen's union in Newfoundland saying that he has not been consulted, although I do hear the minister of fisheries from Newfoundland saying that he has not been consulted.
I am also told that this subject is not political and has nothing to do with politics. We have a minister from Nova Scotia of one political stripe and a minister from Newfoundland of another political stripe. Obviously, these people are Simon pure and are the Robin Hoods of eastern Canada, and they are not doing this for political purposes. Well, if there is no politics involved why is it I have not got on my desk this great $900 million plan? Nor do the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney), the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) or the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson) have it on their desks. If there is no politics, why have we not been consulted?
I am a Newfoundlander and I have some rights. I may not have the total say in shaping the policy, but I have some say. If there is this lack of consultation on the part of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), why is it that the minister of fisheries from Newfoundland has not seen fit to consult any Newfoundlanders in Ottawa? He cannot have it both ways. He cannot say on the one hand that we are not consulting with him if, on the other hand, he is not consulting with us. And he is not. I challenge him to show me a letter, any speech that he has given or any document from him that is in my possession. If somebody can find that I would be pleased to see it. We have not been consulted.
The fact is the only people who saw that document were the press. It was a political episode, and I think that it should be viewed in that light. The provincial ministers were playing politics with the issue. They saw that things were good and they wanted to get on the bandwagon; therefore they took this tack. I do not think it was a very positive or creative tack, but


May 11, 1978

if they want to play games that way then that is their prerogative. The plain and simple fact is that that episode of the plan of the Atlantic provinces, which was not paid attention to in Ottawa, was in my opinion a political episode.
In the long run one may be able to fool members of parliament, the cabinet, bureaucrats and even the press. No, I would not go so far as to say you can fool the press. But there is one other group that you cannot fool, and that is the fishermen. The fishermen realize that this Minister of Fisheries, if he is anything, is not a minister of fisheries but of fishermen. There is adequate proof of that.
As well as saying that they are not being consulted, the provinces are saying that they want more control. I think we have to be very, very careful about that and continue to see that resource as a Canadian resource. I do not think we can consider the resource as being Newfoundland fish, Nova Scotia fish or British Columbia fish; where would we stop? If that concept were taken a little farther the stocks would have to be split up and somehow divided.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) read some press clippings during this debate which said that the provinces want control and authority over the fishery. But if they were to get that authority would they, in turn, appoint an authority over each bay? In Newfoundland, for example, if the minister of fisheries there were to get authority over the province, would be then turn authority over the stocks in Labrador to the people of Labrador?
The hon. member for St. John's West said that Newfoundland now has a great fisheries department and that he built it up. I give him credit for that-credit where credit is due. He did. At the present time, however, they do not have one single provincial fisheries officer in Labrador. If anybody can find one and identify him for me, I would be glad to see him, but as far as I know, there is not one. If they have such a great department and are going to exercise authority, when are they going to appoint some officials?
I do not think you can take that argument to its ultimate conclusion because it means a balkanization, splitting up rather than working together. I believe we should see this as a Canadian resource. I also feel that the people who are contiguous to the resource should have the primary chance to harvest the stock. I think that is also the minister's view. It seems to me that to balkanize the fishery would lead us into very deep water indeed. This is a time when we should act together as Canadians and not balkanize.
The minister has not only been accused of not consulting but also of not initiating a policy for the protection and development of the Canadian fishing industry. I said that this was a minister of fishermen. This is the government and this is the minister that brought in the 200-mile limit. I also said that you could not fool the fishermen. Do not try to tell fishermen along the northeast coast of Newfoundland that the fishery has been mismanaged, and in particular do not tell them that when fish
Fisheries
landings have gone up by 30 to 40 per cent. They will find it difficult to believe that the fishery has been mismanaged.
This is the minister who a couple of years ago, when the fishing industry in this country was in trouble because Korea had hit the United States market with some cheaper fish and outbid us in that market upon which we are so dependent, obtained almost $200 million from the government to shore up the Atlantic fishing industry until he could develop an effective policy.
This is the minister who for the first time put subsidies in the pockets of fishermen. Until a couple of years ago it was the fish companies-the merchant princes of Water Street-who received the subsidies in the province of Newfoundland. Two years ago, two cents per pound on top quality groundfish went to the fishermen for the first time. This is not the Minister of Fisheries, this is the minister of fishermen. This is the minister who has put subsidies on new vessels, who has continued to build marine facilities all around the coast of Atlantic and Pacific Canada. This is the minister who has stressed the inshore fishery as opposed to the offshore.
The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte spoke of the advent of more freezer trawlers. He should recognize, when that sort of thing happens, that if you increase the offshore fleet you simply replace the foreign fishing effort with a Canadian effort that will be in direct competition with Canadian inshore fishermen. It has been the policy of this government to stress the importance of the inshore fishery-as a matter of fact, to take off the top of the groundfish quota every year, a percentage for the inshore fishery. I think the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte should remember the competition that more freezer trawlers for the offshore fleet would provide for the inshore fishery.
The latest policy for the improvement of facilities is a four-year $13 million program to equip about 200 ports with such things as net-bags, hoists and freezer containers to ensure top quality inshore fisheries.
This is the minister, Mr. Speaker, who very dramatically in the past couple of years stood up to world opinion on the matter of the seal hunt. I did not hear anyone on the other side of the House mention that today, although for the last three years the government and opposition have been battling jointly to get the law changed. In all fairness I think that should have been mentioned today and some credit given where it was due.
This is the minister who did not cave in, who did not get weak knees at the expression of adverse public opinion across the world and who changed the law to give greater protection to sealers who depend on that resource for part of their livelihood.
This is the minister who was building new research vessels and who has encouraged research in stocks off our shores. The shrimp, for example, has been described by some people as a virtual gold mine, and it is hoped that in the next couple of years we will begin harvesting shrimp and scallop and other species that we have not harvested up to now. I hope the

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
minister will be making a statement on that in the next few days.
Then there is the matter of ownership of the fleet. The minister has said that his policy leads to ownership by fishermen of a greater part of the fishing fleet. The result is that, where appropriate, ownership of some part of the fleet by processing companies may decrease. This policy is intended to establish all fishing vessels as profit centres which would lead to the development of a better port market-pricing system for landings of fish.
Along with the independent ownership of vessels by fishermen, the minister has proposed credit requirements. In recognition of the fact that the resource availability will continue to improve and that the industry is on the road to development, the minister is saying that a requirement for credit financing could be expected for new and replacement facilities, including vessels. It is his intention to promote the development of a credit institution which will satisfy this requirement. It is intended that the credit institution will play an important role in implementing the policy to encourage independent fishermen to own vessels. This is important to fishermen. They do not have it now; it is something they should have and something the minister is working toward.
The next concern is increasing the Canadian share of the catch. We have heard tonight that foreigners are continually fishing off our shores, but that is a bit of a myth, Mr. Speaker. Primarily the fish they catch is fish that we as Canadians are not able to catch anyway. What have we done about the Canadian share of the catch since the 200-mile limit was imposed? The Canadian government has set quotas for 1978 that will keep foreigners almost completely out of our traditional fisheries such as cod, herring, haddock and redfish. In the cod fishery of southern Labrador and eastern Newfoundland where a few years ago foreigners took over 650,000 metric tonnes, they will now have a quota of 35,000 metric tonnes for 1978 whereas Canadians will harvest 100,000 metric tonnes. The remaining foreign quotas will be almost all in species that Canada does not fish in any great amount- silver hake, capelin, argentine and so on.
The minister has also instituted other programs for the supply of ice which again helps to produce quality fish. I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker. There is the matter of additional quotas for inshore fishermen and policies to protect them. There are other policies which are coming into being and which we on this side of the House will help establish.
I think it is unfortunate that this particular motion deals with personalities rather than the substance of policy. The evidence is there with regard to the policy; the evidence is there with regard to the performance of this government and this minister particularly. He is seen by the fishermen to be their minister. That is not only evidenced in his policy but in the way he conducts himself. While it may be possible to fool some of the people some of the time, it is not possible to fool the fishermen in this instance. It must be abundantly clear by now that if there were a vote tonight, I would vote against this motion.
Mir. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief contribution to this very timely motion introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). The concern expressed in the motion is very genuine and has been very eloquently endorsed by a number of my colleagues.
The two areas of deep concern outlined in this motion affect all Canadians, whether they live on the east coast, the west coast or in central Canada. The total lack of a consultative process between the federal Department of Fisheries and its provincial counterparts and the failure to develop a positive policy for the protection and development of the Canadian fishing industry is disturbing, to say the least.
I would also like to debunk the myth that the fishing industry is somehow the domain of our two coastal communities. We in central Canada, and in Ontario in particular, do indulge in fishing in pursuit of leisure. On the other hand, the commercial fishing industry offers employment to about 4,000 to 5,000 people and the catch is close to 40 million pounds a year. Currently the cash flow from this very important and growing industry is in the vicinity of $20 million for landed catch. This could be doubled to $40 million in retail sales.
These statistics, in a very small way, underscore my earlier remark about the importance of commercial fishing in the province of Ontario. We on this side of the House make an urgent plea to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) to embark on some long-range and constructive policies in collaboration with his provincial counterparts in order to inject some life into an industry which is currently on weak economic ground. There need to be some constructive policies adopted in the area of fisheries resource management.
We in central Canada must join our coastal colleagues in this House who represent some thriving fishing communities on both coasts to express our concern about the violation of our 200-mile territorial limit. We have been very fortunate to enjoy an extremely amiable relationship with our southern neighbour. It will be a tragedy if we succumb to petty territorial rivalries with our neighbours and friends over commercial interests in fishing. It behooves the government, Mr. Speaker, to take urgent and positve action in engaging in serious and genuine consultations with our southern neighbour. The urgency and seriousness of the matter has been profoundly underscored in the past few days by my colleague, the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro).
My apprehension stems from the fact that this government may oversee the demise of our illustrious fishing industry in precisely the same manner in which it ruined our shipbuilding industry. The government's policy in the area of fisheries is shortsighted and erratic, similar to the deficient and bankrupt policies being implemented by the government to deal with our economic woes.
We are not asking the government to perform miracles. The fishing industry needs and certainly deserves a long-range plan of action which will introduce some form of stability, in

May 11, 1978

contrast to the patchwork policies being pursued by the Department of Fisheries.
This morning I had the privilege of sitting as a member of the external affairs committee when the estimates of CIDA were being debated and questioned. The witness before the committee was Mr. Dupuy, the president of CIDA. It is interesting to note that that branch of external affairs has a budget of $1.2 billion, which was dealt with in less that two hours because of the present committee set-up. I am sure the president will not be back before the committee and the estimates will be deemed to be passed as of the end of this month.
I bring this to the attention of the House because in that over $1 billion of estimates there was one small item of $32 million which was earmarked for ten fishing projects. I certainly find no fault with CIDA projects to help countries in the third world. Part of that amount will be used for agricultural development, food. Part will be used to improve the fishery, part to provide boats, small boats, I believe, rather than the very expensive boats which CIDA provided in past years. Another part of the money will be used for fishing schools and training and also for outboard motors.
These projects worth $32 million are earmarked for this year, provided the third world countries and Canada work out suitable arrangements, which I certainly expect they will. There are also projects in the amount of $26 million on the board for the future.
The province I represent, Ontario, receives only $4 million of the entire budget of the Department of Fisheries, less than 9 per cent. One little department of CIDA will receive three and a half times that amount. The combined revenues of the commercial fishery and sports fishery of Ontario equals the amount of revenue generated by either of the coasts. Members on either side of the House may look at this askance, but that is correct. The province of Ontario is probably not assumed to be a commercial fishing province. I wanted that mentioned specifically.
Ontario has 25 per cent of the fresh water in Canada, several thousand miles of shoreline and approximately 53 per cent of all the small craft in Canada. There are 455 harbours. Granted, a good many are recreational harbours, but a good number are dual harbours.
Ontario is getting short-changed with regard to the amount of money allocated, considering that Ontario has more shoreline than the province of Quebec. However, the Quebec allotment is greater than Ontario. That does not even include the allocated amount for the Montreal harbour. I was under the impression that was around $26 million, but someone mentioned it is closer to $40 million. In addition, a tremendous amount is earmarked for Quebec City.
The province of Ontario contributes a considerable amount to the national coffers, but gets the short end of the stick when the Department of Fisheries and the Environment is handing out money. It is very important that Ontario at least get its
Fisheries
share. As I mentioned before, it should at least get half its share.
We are talking about commercial fishing, but sport fishing is also important. It generates amounts in the millions of dollars. It is estimated that Ontario has 53 per cent of all pleasure boats in Canada. Our dual harbours are used for both commercial fishing and tourism. It is therefore important that the provinces should have additional moneys available with which to improve facilities. I have received letters from municipalities requesting improvements to docks. The regional manager of Environment Canada in charge of small harbours informs me that he appreciates the situation but that the available budget is cut to the bone and no additional funds are available. A few days ago I contacted the department because one of the municipalities had requested improvements to the docks. The regional manager said that nothing could be done before 1979-80.
So here again we find the little province of Ontario, which is contributing greatly to federal revenues, in a less than favourable position. I see hon. members smiling. I say it is just as well to have it on record. Everybody seems to think Ontario is the most favoured province, but a good many other provinces are fortunate that Ontario is able to contribute such large amounts of money in so many directions.
Tourism is another important means of generating money. I draw attention to the fact that there are 110 million Americans living within one day's drive of Ontario. And don't think they are not coming over here in droves. Naturally, we would like to see them coming in even greater numbers to help make Ontario and Canada green, but to encourage this movement it is important that we have the facilities they need, including upgraded harbours.
I will close, now, Mr. Speaker, realizing that there are others who wish to contribute to the debate this evening.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take part in the debate this evening, consideration of a motion which condemns the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc), allegedly because there has been a lack of consultation. I do not want to spend much time on that part of the motion because the minister himself and his parliamentary secretary have dealt with it adequately. The minister tabled this afternoon a list of the meetings and consultations in which he has taken part, together with provincial representatives, fishermen's groups and other organizations. It is a record unmatched by any other minister.
Not only has the present minister been the best Minister of Fisheries, as the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) admitted this evening, but he has consulted more widely with provincial governments and others before reaching decisions. As I say, I do not want to spend too much time on the consultation aspect because it seems to me the opposition speakers were not particularly interested in it; they were more interested in finding other grounds for criticizing the minister.


Fred Alward McCain: All those governments aren't Liberal. You are judging them all by yourself.


Herb Breau: All those governments are not Liberal, but the provinces of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island and all their inshore fishermen would become bankrupt if we were to accept the plan put forward by the province of Newfoundland, with the support of the province of Nova Scotia, because they do not want to rebuild the stocks. They are not concerned about proper management or rational development. I have a copy of their plan here. They want to build fishing capacity beyond what it was before the 200-mile limit was set. They want to build it beyond what it was when foreigners were fishing there. They are not talking about rebuilding stocks either in the 200-mile limit or in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. What they want to do is rape the resource and get short-term profits for themselves.
I think that point of view should be put to the people of this country and to the people of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. I would be very happy for them if they could get something good, but there is a problem. The question is not one of who should own the resource but of who can manage it properly. I am from the Atlantic provinces, but we must criticize ourselves because, while we might agree in criticizing Ottawa or the rest of the country, the four Atlantic provinces cannot agree on the time of day. The maritime provinces have been trying for the last few years to agree on something. Why all these inter-governmental meetings between provinces when really one constitutional authority can listen to the four Atlantic provinces?
The federal authority has to account to this House and to hon. members opposite, who do not consider themselves the protectors of the interests of their constituents. They do not consider themselves the protectors of the interests of the people
May 11, 1978

of Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. I do, and I am also ready to defend the interests of my constituents at any time in this House. Is it not really more efficient and does it not make more sense to have one constitutional authority? In the Gulf of St. Lawrence or even outside the gulf we really cannot define the line between the provinces of New Brunswick, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. And what do we do about P.E.I.? How are we going to agree on the line?
The position put forward by the province of Newfoundland is unfair in terms of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The people of New Brunswick depend on the rebuilding of stocks and on a rational and cautious development of that fishery in the future. However, the position accepted by the Conservative opposition is really unworkable, and to suggest that we could bring together the four Atlantic provinces and the province of Quebec even to agree on where to hold a meeting to discuss these things is absurd. Nobody would agree on anything. As I said before, they could not even agree on the time of day. The result would be that a few companies based in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland would rape the resource.
We all know the concentration of power presently in the fishing industry. We all know about the transfer of shares which took place on the stock market in 1977. We all know how strong fishing companies are becoming. We all know that while provincial politicians were arguing amongst themselves, five or six big companies would rape the resource, and the result would be that all of us would pay very dearly.
I just hope that the Conservative party comes before the people in the Atlantic provinces with that kind of position, because I feel that the people of Canada everywhere do want a stronger central government; and if there is one area where the fishermen and the people generally want the federal government to maintain its authority, it is the area of resource management for the fishery. Anything else would be total chaos.
The basis of the policy of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment in the last few years has been to have a fair allocation of quotas. For the first time in the last two years we have an allocation of quotas. If there is going to be a scarcity of fish, we say that different areas will have a fair allocation of quota. They can extract that fish from the sea. However, we also say that inshore fishermen will have their share. How will they have their share if more than one authority decides how much fish is to be taken? If we do not protect fish coming into the Gulf of St. Lawrence by having a sound, rational and cautious development policy within the 200-mile limit, it just will not get there. If it does not get there, that will mean bankruptcy for the fishing industry. The basis of the policy of cautious development is that the inshore fishermen should have a share and an opportunity to enjoy the prosperity it had, in relative terms, 20 years ago.


Fred Alward McCain: I agree with that.


Herb Breau: The hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte now says he agrees. It is difficult to understand the policy of the Conservative party. One wonders if it is the result of conviction
Fisheries
or confusion. Just about 20 minutes ago the hon. member was criticizing the minister for saying exactly what I am saying. I am saying that we should resist the policy of the Newfoundland government. Just because it is a Tory government, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte should not think it has the divine answer to everything. I am here defending the minister and explaining why, and the hon. member interjects and says he agrees. The hon. member should make up his mind.
I should remind the hon. member about what has been happening to the herring fishery in his own constituency in the last few years. The purse-seine landings tripled in value in 1977 over 1975, from $2.8 million to about $7 million, yet he has the gall to criticize the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. The minister saved the herring fishery in the Bay of Fundy with his policy. Federal government measures have tripled the value of the herring purse-seine fishery in the Bay of Fundy. Federal fisheries authorities backed the seiners to form a marketing co-operative and helped them work out individual boat quotas which enabled them to slow down their rate of fishing and to sell herring for processing into food rather than racing to catch all the quota in a short time to sell for reduction to fishmeal. That is what was happening before the minister came in with his policy.
The hon. member suggests that the federal government is unfair by insisting that it should have the authority to regulate the fishery. He should have been in his constituency over the last two months asking herring fishermen what they think about that. If the herring fishermen of the hon. member's constituency were to read his speech of this evening, I would have to go there to help him in the next election because he would be in difficulty.
I mentioned a while ago that in 1978 Canada will get 69 per cent of the traditional groundfish catch. In 1974 it got only 33 per cent. That is not the only difference we must look at. In terms of inshore fisheries, again for the first time the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment introduced the concept of allocation on a regional basis. For example, there will be a cod quota in 1978 for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Not only will there be a cod quota generally for the Atlantic provinces but also for the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Also there is a cod quota for inshore fishermen. As a result of that, the inshore fisheries now have an opportunity to prosper.
For hon. members opposite, under the guise of a motion, to attempt to condemn the minister for lack of consultation is unreasonable. They come here and present various arguments. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) complained this afternoon about 500 licences being given to foreign fishing vessels within the 200-mile limit. Is that a big scandal? In the groundfish industry, we will be fishing 69 per cent in 1978, whereas in 1974 we were fishing only 32 per cent of the total allowable catch. The foreigners are receiving species which Canada is not equipped to process. Canada is not used to

May 11, 1978
Fisheries
fishing those species traditionally, and we do not have a market for them. Why not let the foreigners take them?
I support the position of the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. I support his contention that fisheries management must remain a federal authority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herb Breau: At this time in our history, there is no way that I would want to see the central government weakened in any way, particularly not in the area of the fisheries. That would mean chaos. There is no way the four Atlantic provinces would agree on anything. The result would be that four or five big companies would control the fisheries. For an hon. member from New Brunswick to suggest that the power over fisheries should be given to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia is not feasible. The result would be that the inshore fisheries of New Brunswick would be totally bankrupt. I could not stand for that. I support the posture the minister has taken, as well as the policy which he introduced respecting a cautious development of the fisheries. If there is a need for more fishing capacity, better boats and bigger boats, later on we can acquire these boats when necessary and when there are fish to fish in the sea.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in the very few minutes remaining in our allotted day, I should like to speak about the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. It was established in 1969 specifically to market fish, fish products and by-products in the Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and a portion of Ontario. As is clearly stated in its 1976-1977 annual report, the objective of the corporation was to market fish in an orderly manner and to increase interprovincial and export trade.
One could probably write a book on the allegations which have been brought to our attention concerning this corporation over the past eight months. One such allegation is that 14 million to 15 million pounds of fish purchased by the corporation through its Transcona plant were in storage at a cost of $5,000 a day to the fishermen. Some of it has been kept in storage for as long as nine months. Another allegation was that many pounds of fillets had to be thrown away because of freezer burn. A further allegation concerned the deliberate changing of packaging dates on fish already in storage so that it would appear to be fresh fish. Apparently expensive fishing and processing equipment was sitting unused adjacent to the Transcona plant. I could refer to many such allegations.
Prior to the estalishment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, fishermen sold their produce through various private companies in the north. At that time all the fish was being sold. It did not have to be put into storage, and the fishermen were not assessed some nine cents a pound per annum to keep fish in storage. Today the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation does not seem able to sell half the amount of fish being produced. From 1963 to 1969 the average production in northern Manitoba was nine million pounds per annum. That fish was all marketed. It did not have to be

stored, and fishermen were not assessed one cent per pound per month. Now that the corporation is in place, the average annual market volume is 5.5 million pounds. We have taken a step backward.
The corporation will indicate that fishermen are receiving a better price for their catch, but when fishermen are required to pay in order to keep fish in storage for a period up to nine months, that theory does not make sense. Instead of putting this fish in storage, we should use mother nature's deep freeze. The lakes in northern Manitoba are ideal. In the wintertime they could be used to replace deep freezer storage until production is sold to a buyer in the United States, our major customer. The fish could be taken out of the lakes and shipped directly to the market. Then fishermen would receive a better price for their fish, at least ten cents a pound bonus for fishing in the wintertime. Also we would get away from these high storage costs.
If the Canadian inland fishery is to survive, we will have to take a look at the lakeside results which fishermen receive in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories and so on. A portion of Ontario has opted out of the program. The fishermen of that province are now receiving $1.16 to $1.20 per pound for pickerel, whereas fishermen under the corporation receive only 50 cents to 69 cents per pound.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), that proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, on May 3 I directed a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). I asked her whether representations had been made by medical researchers to the effect that the small increase in funds allocated for medical research this year would have very serious effects on the entire program of medical research, and on the ability of this country to keep medical research in Canada. The minister replied by pointing out that there had been an increase of 5.6 per cent, which amounted to approximately $60 million. Also in view of the freeze under the restraint program, she felt that medical researchers had not been badly dealt with.
May 11, 1978

The increase is far short of what is required. Medical education in Canada to a large extent has been based on teachers in our medical colleges who are vitally interested and tremendously involved in research in the various specialties for which they have been trained and are deeply involved. They are experts in their fields. They want to continue their work. If they are not permitted to continue their work because funds are not made available, they will move to the United States. The United States is not just a country close to Canada, not just a country to which it is easy to move, and not just a country in which the people speak the same language; it is a country which spends at least ten times as much per capita on medical research as we in Canada spend.
This results in a constant pull from Canada of Canadian medical researchers to the United States. Just a week or so ago one of the best known and most competent of the researchers at the medical college at the University of Manitoba, Dr. Ruben Cherniack, announced he would be moving to one of the mid-western states. He is moving because he does not have to worry in that state about the funding necessary to carry on the research in which he is interested. The money is made available there freely and willingly.
Too little money for medical research has been the story for many years in Canada. What have aggravated the situation are the stop and go programs in Canada. Some two years ago when medical researchers successfully mounted a protest against that year's cut-backs, the then minister of national health and welfare, speaking at a meeting of the Standing Committee of Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, said in part:
You cannot just turn it on and off as if it were a water tap. What we are trying to develop is a kind of formula or criterion, by which research... particularly medical research ... will be able to count on some reasonably steady rate of growth in its expenditures.
Those were brave and sensible words. The medical research community hoped the government had changed its thinking and that there was a new understanding regarding the importance of medical reasearch. They thought the government had accepted the principles enunciated in those words I have just quoted from the former minister. After two relatively good years, researchers find this year they are right back in the mess they were in two years ago. The $60 million allocated is just not good enough. This is an increase and we can argue how much. The minister said it was an increase of 5.6 per cent. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a letter said it was an increase of 7.8 per cent, and medical researchers say it is an increase of three decimal something per cent. The fact is that the cost of medical research has gone up between 15 per cent and 20 per cent annually.
What this small increase this year means is that the National Research Council had to turn down about 167 grants for highly qualified applicants, as well as the applications of 32 excellent investigators who wanted to continue the work which has been funded by the National Research Council so far. They have been told they would have to conclude their research in the next few months. It has been estimated that
Adjournment Debate
they need about another $6 million to cover the cost of staffing their research programs, as well as for equipment and for the development grants program which has gone a long way to providing the salary support needed to recruit new faculty members in the newer medical colleges. This development grants program was cut to the bone. It is short by at least $500,000.
What we have according to medical researchers is another crisis which will have a profound effect not just on the researchers but on the whole program of medical education. What we are talking about is some $6 million, and I do not believe that a country like Canada which has programs in every field which total in the tens of billions of dollars cannot find $6 million. I would urge the minister to reconsider the decision.
The Acting Speaking (Mr. Ethier): Order, please.


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) for bringing up at this time a topic which is not only of concern to him but to many other members of parliament, and certainly to the Minister of the Department of National Health and Welfare. I would like to point out to him that the minister did reply to him in her response of May 3, 1978, but I wish to amplify that to some extent. Before doing so, however, although he has mentioned that many doctors are moving to the United States, I would like to inform him that it is not all milk and honey and sweetness and light in the United States and many doctors are returning.
The hon. member also indicated that the per capita research in the United States is ten times that of Canada. If he checks his figures he will find it is not ten times the per capita amount but rather $10 per capita in the United States as compared to one-third of that in Canada, if my figures are correct. It is true there is a difference, but ten times as against three times is quite a significant difference.
I disagree with the hon. member when he says there is a crisis as far as this is concerned, because many of the most important projects are in fact being funded at the present time. I believe that many hon. members will have received representations from their constituencies about the government's funding of medical research in 1978-79. I appreciate and share that concern.
I would like to take this opportunity, however, to correct a number of inaccuracies that have crept into reports and statements in the media. It has been stated that 20 per cent of ongoing Canadian projects in the medical sector have just been terminated by the Medical Research Council. This is significant exaggeration which should be corrected. In Canada in the fiscal year just ended, a total of 2,725 research projects in medical fields were under way with support from one of the major granting agencies-federal, provincial or voluntary.

May 11, 1978
Adjournment Debate
This figure included 1,302 supported by the federal Medical Research Council, of which 545 were assured of funding for the coming year without further review.
In November, 1977, and March, 1978, the Medical Research Council had for consideration applications for the renewal of 575 projects. Approval was given to continued support of 475 of those projects for further periods of one to three years. In the remaining 100 cases, support was provided only for periods of three to eight months, to enable the investigators to bring the projects to an orderly conclusion or to revise the protocol for future work so that it would be more favourably viewed by the applicant's scientific peers and thus receive further funding in the next competition. This unconditional award rate of 82 per cent of the requests under review is not at all unusual in the experience of the Medical Research Council.


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


AIRPORTS-CONSTRUCTION OF FACILITIES AT CHARLOTTETOWN-ALLEGED DELAY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a minor transgression from procedure, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary to convey to his minister my opinion that she is a lady of great compassion, and I support her in all the endeavours that she has put forward for the deserving people of this country.
Once again I address the House on a problem both important and pressing, the construction of adequate airport facilities for the city of Charlottetown and the province of Prince Edward Island. This is not the first time I have presented my concerns, Mr. Speaker. I brought up the subject most recently on November 7, 1977, and on May 24 and January 31 of the same year. I had hoped that an announcement made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) on November 8, 1977 concerning funding for the new terminus would have ended my anxiety. However, I fear that my worries are far from alleviated. Delay and uncertainty seem to remain the order of the day.
The problems we are facing become increasingly serious as we approach the summer months. Tourists will soon be heading to our beautiful villages and sunny beaches. Once again the summer visitor arriving by air will be greeted with uncomfortable and inadequate convenience-an unnecessary and unwelcome set of circumstances far from becoming the capital city of the province where confederation began.
9 (2212)
Being a believer in representative democracy, I consider it a grave situation that the worries of the people of the village of East Royalty have not been eased. For months they have had to contend with uncertainty concerning their position in respect to their property. Certainly, land acquisition is a necessary effect of expanding the Charlottetown airport. It has been estimated that approximately 28 property owners will be affected by the project, 28 individuals and families who at the

present time have not been given any reasonable assurance from the federal government as to their circumstances or their future. They had been promised ample opportunity through public meetings to voice their position and to receive information from the responsible officials. The last such public session was held in December of last year, with no indication of another forthcoming. The people of East Royalty are deserving of better treatment and I request of the minister that the village be given immediate recognition and full information so that this problem affecting the airport's expansion be resolved.
Not all Islanders are enthusiastic about the Charlottetown airport plan. On a "hot line" radio program in Charlottetown, some citizens have suggested that $21 million is too much to spend. I know this problem and I am convinced of the importance of new air terminal facilities to the economy of the province and the well-being of its citizens. The sum of $21 million is not too much; in fact, I wonder if it is too little. We of the Island have been too long neglected. I urge the minister not to consider a reduction of this figure. PEI deserves a first class airport and I make no apology for advocating such an installation. Why should we settle for second best? I think we should not.
Four weeks ago we all thought that the days of this parliament were numbered. After today's words from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) it seems that we are to stay for yet another few months. I urge the minister to devote some of this freshly acquired time to the exigencies of the construction of this much needed facility and to go "full steam ahead" on a sorely needed project, the airport in Prince Edward Island.
I want the parliamentary secretary to assure the minister- who is not the most popular figure in that part of Canada- that he will have my full and sustained support in bringing to Charlottetown a much needed airport with the most modern facilities that our province requires and needs. I will support the minister to the fullest extent of my eloquence and capacity as either a has-been politician or emeritus one, depending upon whether it is friend or enemy who describes me. I should like the parliamentary secretary to know that we appreciate his attention.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) when he describes his province of Prince Edward Island as one of the jewels of Canadian tourist life. I am sure-in fact that is the very reason why the Department of Transport decided to spend a relatively large amount of money on the Charlottetown airport-I am sure that everything in our power must be done to give better services to the visitors who go to Prince Edward Island as well, if not, in particular, Mr. Speaker, to the citizens of the island. I should like to thank the hon. member for his words of support for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). I agree with him that the needs of the people living near the airport must be taken into consideration and efforts made to
May 11, 1978

try to solve the sociological problems caused by having to move and the construction of a larger airport in the vicinity.

As the hon. member mentioned in his intervention, on November 8, 1977, the Minister of Transport announced that the federal government will completely redevelop the Charlottetown airport at a total cost of $21,531,500, to include a new terminal building and eventually a new 5,000 foot runway. I can assure the hon. member that this amount will not be diminished and that we will forgo the previous engagement we took last November. The Minister of Transport said at that time, and I quote:
This massive project indicates the government's longstanding commitment to improve transportation facilities in this province and throughout Atlantic Canada.
Adjournment Debate
The minister also paid tribute to the dynamic and highly successful Prince Edward Island tourism program since jet service began in 1969, which has resulted in a dramatic increase in air transportation. The Charlottetown airport redevelopment concept was developed in close consultation and co-operation with provincial and municipal authorities.
It is worth repeating that the carriers serving Charlottetown participated fully in the development of the master plan which identified a requirement for a new runway in future years. The first state of the new runway would be constructed to a length of 5,000 feet. As and when the demand developed, it would be extended to 7,000 feet. If at that time aviation technology has changed to the point where an even longer runway is required, operational requirements will be met.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:18 p.m.

Friday, May 12, 1978