1978-02-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter pertaining to the work being done by certain special and executive assistants to members of the cabinet. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Prime Minister advise the House whether it is government policy to permit special and executive assistants to cabinet ministers to visit or contact various constituencies on matters that are not government business, and specifically that the Prime Minister immediately instruct all members of the cabinet to cease permitting their staffs during government working time and at taxpayers' expense from indulging in attempts to prop up the obviously lost cause of Trudeau-type Liberalism.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be discussed only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CHEQUES RETURNED TO PRODUCERS-ACTION BY CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgency. In view of the fact that many grain producers who sold to feed mills, unaware that they were not designated to collect the 2 per cent deduction, are having their cheques returned by the Western Grain Stabilization Board, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board immediately consider taking action to resolve this problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the necessity that Canadian steel manufacturers produce the steel for the Canadian portion of the Alcan pipeline, and in view of recent statements by Foothills Pipe Lines Limited indicating that a decision is required soon regarding the size of pipe to be used, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House urges the government to announce that the steel pipe to be used in the construction of the Alcan pipeline be of a size which can be produced both in eastern and western Canada and that the government announce its intention to guarantee that orders for the Canadian portion of the pipeline will be filled in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FISHERIES


Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the tremendous need for employment opportunities in the Atlantic provinces, in view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) was reported by Canadian Press on October 21 last as having stated that he is considering favourably a new policy to permit foreign nations to repair their fishing vessels in Canadian shipyards and stated a week ago that he would permit such fishing vessels to have major repairs done in Canadian shipyards, and in view of the fact that Canadian control over fishing in the 200-mile economic zone now makes the former restrictions unnecessary, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Haiifax East (Mr. Forrestall):

February 1, 1978
That this House direct the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment to implement a new policy permitting foreign fishing vessels to be repaired in Canadian shipyards commencing today, and that foreign Fishing vessels be allowed to transfer catches and exchange crews at Canadian ports as part of the said new policy.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a matter which is of great importance, especially at this time of the year.
Given the fact that Air Canada domestic fares are higher than those on overseas flights, which amounts to inviting Canadians to travel outside the country during their vacations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette):
That the House urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and the management of Air Canada to take a close look at domestic and international travel with a view to authorizing competitive domestic and overseas fares so as to encourage Canadians to travel more within Canada, a policy which is likely to foster Canadian harmony.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDUSTRY


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek the consent of the House to move a motion of critical urgency to literally thousands of laid-off Canadian shipyard workers and their colleagues who will during the next three to five months find themselves out of work. Given the critical situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):

That this House directs the Government of Canada to take immediate steps to ensure that during periods of slack activity in our Canadian shipyards, all Canadian government-owned ships will in fact be designed and built in Canadian yards, and further directs the Minister of Transport to recall from Europe those officials of his department who are there seeking a ferry replacement for the CN Marine ferry Carson.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion, pursuant to the Standing Order, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the grave concern being expressed by people in the Yellowknife-Hay River area in respect of media coverage of the radiation hazards caused by the crash of the Soviet satellite, which they feel will have an adverse effect on the tourist industry, and in view of the fact that the site of the crash is in an isolated area and danger from radiation will be restricted to the site and will not affect the areas ordinarily visited by tourists, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the Minister of National Defence issue a statement assuring the public that the danger from radiation is limited to the isolated site and, further, that in the event the wreckage of the satellite is not returned to the Soviet Union and is not hazardous, it be placed in the museum at Yellowknife as an additional tourist attraction.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



FINANCE


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alan Anderson: Since British Columbia, by reasons of history, geography and the nature of its steel consumers, is not part of the domestic market for Algoma wide-flange steel, I move,
February 1, 1978

seconded by the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall):
That the President of the Treasury Board seek and obtain a remission order pursuant to section 7 of the Financial Administration Act 1970, RSC chapter F-10, from the governor in council regarding an anti-dumping tribunal's decision with respect to the dumping of steel.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of the said motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Paproski:: No one said "No".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Simma Holt said "No".


Mrs. Holt:: I said "Agreed".



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the two largest native organizations of the Northwest Territories, namely, the Indian Brotherhood of the N.W.T. and the Inuit Tapirisat, have refused to participate in the inquiry, headed by C. M. Drury, on constitutional development in the Northwest Territories, and that without the involvement of these groups the inquiry will be rendered irrelevant, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House calls upon the government to suspend the lame-duck Drury inquiry until some accommodation can be reached with the Indian Brotherhood and ITC so that native peoples in the north are represented in any ongoing discussions regarding the constitutional evolution of the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions POINT OF ORDER



MR. BAKER (GRENVILLE-CARLETON)-S.O. 43 MOTION BY MR. ANDERSON

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I thank you very much for recognizing me at this particular point, as it does have to do with the proceedings which have just taken place. There is a considerable body of opinion in the House, and we bow to your judgment, sir, that there was not a "No" in respect of the motion by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). I wonder whether we might be permitted, since it is not unprecedented, to have that motion called again, perhaps to test the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was no mistaking the distinct "No" I heard in respect of the motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Solicitor General. Yesterday, I asked the minister specific questions about the state of knowledge of the previous solicitor general when he signed an affidavit on September 15 and, indeed, a subsequent affidavit on October 12, relating to the 26 documents which the solicitor general refused to turn over to the Keable inquiry. The Acting Solicitor General said his predecessor would not have known that one or more of those documents referred to operation "Ham", that is, the PQ break-in, because they were coded numerically.
Would the Acting Solicitor General explain to the House why the department, the security service or whoever it was, would use code numbers, when this operation had already been given a code name, namely, operation "Ham"?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity, which I appreciate the House giving me, of reviewing the annex to the affidavit to which the hon. member refers. There are three references to documents with references to file numbers. They were considered, along with the other 23 documents, by the then solicitor general against a set of criteria drawn up by him, his advisers and counsel- including counsel from my department-as to the basis upon which they should be excluded. Those three references had file references which later turned out to be references to the "Ham" file. I have reviewed the three documents which are excluded, and none of those documents, while they have a file reference, include the word "Ham".

February 1, 1978
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated yesterday in his answers that there was no contradiction. In his answer on Monday, he said:
Any minister signing a section 41 declaration does so after careful examination of the documents in front of him-
Therefore, the very unfortunate question has to be: On October 28 or October 31, did the then solicitor general mislead the House; or on September 15 or October 12, did the then solicitor general sign a false affidavit?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both those questions is an emphatic "No". The documents which were given to the Keable inquiry under that affidavit, and the documents that were withheld, were carefully reviewed by the then solicitor general, over some 70 hours of work with his advisers, as to which would be submitted to the inquiry and which would not. None of those documents refer to "Ham". Those 26 documents were excluded, on the basis of section 41(2), against a set of criteria including such things as the protection of human sources, technical sources, information from other security services and the revealing of other targets or operations of the RCMP.
At that time, the then solicitor general, in reviewing those documents, was reviewing documents relative to the Bricole file or the Bricole matter, the break-in at the APLQ, and was excluding documents which did not relate to that incident.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, because this discussion is not clarifying anything, my final supplementary question is: Were there documents listed among the 26 which referred to activities other than those to which the affidavit referred, because the matters deposed to and the documents referred to in the affidavit related to specific events, being the subject matter of the inquiry of Mr. Justice Keable, specifically? Were these other three documents related to other activities, specifically, the Parti Quebecois break-in? How on earth could the minister fail to inform himself of that very situation, having, as his successor has said, met the standard of conduct required by a minister in signing a section 41 affidavit, which was outlined to the House by the Acting Solicitor General yesterday?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, they were documents which did not relate to the APLQ break-in, they related to other files of the RCMP which did not relate to the APLQ, and therefore were excluded from the affidavit relating to the APLQ. I think some of the confusion-and I indicated the other day that there is confusion-may well arise from the fact that there is in the annex, the list of excluded documents, a reference to a telex which does not use the word "Ham". There is, however, another telex of the same date, from the same officer which does refer to operation "Ham". That is not the telegram referred to in the annex, nor is it the document excluded by the former solicitor general.


William Herbert Jarvis: Will the Acting Solicitor General assure the House that the affidavit sworn to by the then solicitor general on October 12, 1977, which includes the list of documents, No.

24 of which is a telex from d'Entremont, does not relate to operation "Ham", that is, the PQ break-in?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
 * *


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Alcan company is shutting down its fluorspar mine in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland-a criminal act which will throw 400 people in the community out of work-and in view of the fact that Alcan is doing this because they feel they can make more profit from the fluorspar mine owned by Noranda in Mexico, and in view of the fact that Alcan is brutalizing the community in this way, immediately following a year in which that company's profits increased by 500 per cent over the previous year, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why he refuses to protect the jobs of Canadians and the community of St. Lawrence by imposing temporary import tariffs on fluorspar?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: The representations of the hon. member in this matter will be considered.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that about a month ago the government took the position that it would not impose an import tariff on fluorspar, and in view of the fact that the precedent for imposing an import tariff to protect Canadian industry and jobs was established in the shoe industry, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House why he is so tardy as to put off the decision, once again, on which depends the fate of the community and the jobs of 400 workers? Can he tell the House right now, without equivocating and without fiddling and faddling, if he is prepared, now, to impose an import tariff on fluorspar?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question would be no, without further consideration.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the fact that it is fairly obvious that the House has frequently in the past voted, considered and debated legislation to put workers back to work, and in view of the fact that the government is putting off the decision and has in the past denied the right to impose a tariff on imported fluorspar, can the Acting Prime Minister tell the House if he intends to bring legislation before the House which will put capital back to work so that no one will be laid off in St. Lawrence, Newfoundland?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will give the same answer to the third question on the same point.
February 1, 1978

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
I have been told that over similar distances domestic rates differ from rates on overseas flights originating in Canada.
Could the minister tell the House whether those allegations are correct and, if so, what criteria are considered in establishing passenger rates inside or outside the country?
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to make a sweeping statement about a comparison of rates of all kinds within the country and abroad. However, it may be that the hon. member's question is directly related to a recent report of a higher rate between points in eastern Canada and Vancouver, compared with a lower rate if one is travelling to Los Angeles. That report, as an Air Canada vice president made clear in a letter to the same newspaper, was quite wrong. As usual, a charter economy or excursion fare was being compared with a regular fare inside Canada.
In fact, a real comparison of rates shows that the lowest rates generally available are charter competitive fares, which both CP Air and Air Canada offer. As that vice president reported, on the particular routes being used as the examples when comparing those two fares, the fare for the inside Canada route was actually lower than the one to the foreign destination.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, would the minister give serious attention to this matter, which is of great interest for all Canadians, so that people who wish to take a few days' vacation be better informed, and see if it might be possible to give a special advantage to Canadians who want to visit Canada rather than foreign countries?
Could the minister inform the House about this study? Would he be prepared to make that recommendation or to give the results of this study in the House of Commons within the next few days?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, very often the inside-Canada fares are indeed as low or lower than similar ones for foreign destinations. What 1 think may be required is the correcting of the false impression which is often left when comparing an excursion fare with a regular fare, which is obviously not a fair comparison. I think I should encourage the airlines to give greater publicity to their charter competitive fares so that there is as much attention given to them for travel inside Canada as the promoters of various tours abroad give to the rates available there. I believe greater
Oral Questions
information is what is required. I think the fare structure may, in fact, be reasonably balanced at the present time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday, General Hill, the Commander in Chief of NORAD, stated that he had briefed the Prime Minister on the nuclear package in the faltering Cosmos satellite. It seems that the Prime Minister either forgot to pass the news on to the Minister of National Defence, or possibly did not understand what the briefing officers were telling him. In any case, the Minister of National Defence was left in the dark by both the Prime Minister and his own Chief of Defence staff. Has the minister discussed with the Prime Minister the advantages of keeping the minister informed about military matters? In turn, the minister might enlighten the Prime Minister regarding the role of NORAD.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there is no discrepancy and there never has been a discrepancy. The information which has come to either the Prime Minister or myself has been known by both of us. There is a discrepancy in the statement made last night by General Hill. There is, obviously, a misunderstanding, because that statement is not borne out by officers who are at the location. Unfortunately, General Hill is on his way back to Colorado Springs. I am sure he and the Prime Minister will be pleased to answer questions about this matter. I will have word from General Hill later this afternoon when the Prime Minister returns to the House. I am sure that the information he was given is correct.


DISINTEGRATION OF SOVIET SATELLITE OVER CANADIAN SOIL-USEFULNESS OF U.S.S.R. SCIENTISTS BEING ON SITE
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question would have been directed to the Prime Minister, but unfortunately he is absent so I will ask about another aspect of this problem. One of the senior Canadian officers engaged in the search for and retrieval of the debris has suggested that it would be helpful to have Russian scientists there now. Has the government considered this course of action and, if so, what steps have been taken?


Barnett Jerome Danson: understand that the Prime Minister is speaking with representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress at the present time. Many people at the site are making many statements. There has been no request for Russian assistance from any of our people. The Soviets have offered to assist, but there has not been a need for it. It is very simple for hon. members

February 1, 1978
Oral Questions
opposite to pick up the latest edition of a newspaper or to listen to the latest newscasts, but I have to deal with a situation which covers some 20,000 square miles, with hundreds of people involved, in a very hostile environment with temperatures of 70 degrees below zero with the wind chill factor. We have a large operation going on there. What any individual might say might be helpful and, if not, the information is coming through from individuals in charge of the search.


NORAD-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON CANADA'S ROLE
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: In view of the efficient and clear statement of General Hill of the United States, which indicated that the Prime Minister apparently did not understand the significance of the falling satellite, nor did he understand the significance of Canada's participation in the joint command aspect of NORAD, in view of the Prime Minister's confusion will the Minister of National Defence consider making a statement on motions to clarify the government's confusion and incompetence, in order that Canadians may be reassured regarding the security of the nation and the excellence and competence of our Canadian defence officials in NORAD?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am really amazed by hon. members who believe that every foreign officer is making an accurate statement, and when it comes to our Canadian forces they seem to question them all the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think the hon. member is as far back on the backbenches as he can be, but it is still too bad he is that close.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Unfortunately, the minister did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker. I said that I wanted him to make such a statement on motions, in order that the people of Canada might understand that members on this side of the House share an understanding as to the excellence of our forces. We are not concerned about their excellence; we are concerned about the incompetence of the government. Will the minister make such a statement on motions?


POST OFFICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It relates to the possible misleading of the House, or misinformation given by an official of the Post Office to the minister. Mr. Paul Boisvert, director of security and investigations for the Post Office, has told the McDonald commission that he learned of the "Cathedral" mail openings by the RCMP some time in October. On November 9, in the House, the minister denied

that he knew anything about illegal mail openings. In fact, in response to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition he said:
Mr. Speaker, following the investigation I have conducted with my own security investigation personnel, I stand by my statement.
Will the minister say whether he misled the House at that time, or whether he had been misinformed by his official who heads the security and investigations division?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, the question I was asked was whether I was aware of any complicity on the part of postal officials tampering with the mail. I have not seen the transcript of Mr. Boisvert's evidence, but as I understand it, the evidence before the McDonald inquiry was to the effect that he had been made aware in mid-October of the RCMP tampering with the mail. There is no indication that at that time he had been made aware of any official or employee of the Post Office being involved.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. We are moving from misleading, to incompetence in the operation of the department. The Postmaster General well knows that the questioning on that particular day related to stories revealed in the press of RCMP interception of mail. Will the minister indicate to the House whether he will take action with respect to that official in his department, or whether he will bear full responsibility for misleading this House on a very important matter as far as the country is concerned?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on that day I answered the question put to me by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Postmaster General at least give this House the assurance that he will not, under any circumstances, allow his name to stand for the position of solicitor general?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE STUDY OPERATIONS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. In view of the increasing disgust of more and more Canadians with the inadequacy of our postal service, as evidenced by the fact that in one constituency office yesterday we received eight to ten phone calls, independently, from people indicating their dismay with the situation, would the Postmaster General agree that the inquiries he has instituted to date in which Post Office officials investigate themselves, are a failure and would he be willing to reconsider having a parliamentary committee investigate the whole Post Office mess?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: No, Mr. Speaker.
February 1, 1978


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO FIGHT CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of recently published statistics that cardiovascular disease is still the number one cause of mortality and morbidity in Canada, and that the month of February is dedicated by the medical world as "heart month", I should like to ask the minister what new steps she has taken to help Canadians fight cardiovascular disease.


Mr. Clark:: 
Some hon. Members:: Order.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I will address my question to the government House leader, the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government made any response to the formal note submitted to it by the International Joint Commission with regard to postponing or imposing a moratorium on the construction of the power development on the Poplar River in Saskatchewan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not made any formal reply to the request of the International Joint Commission that further work on the project be suspended until information has been assembled which is required for the water quality studies of the commission. We are aware that the government of Saskatchewan has indicated it will attempt to provide the required information as soon as possible.
Oral Questions FISHERIES


REPAIR OF FOREIGN VESSELS IN CANADIAN SHIPYARDS- GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, as he may leave us soon. As the minister knows, I have been urging him for a year to announce a policy that will give Canadians ship repair yards the ability to service foreign fishing vessels. The minister had said he would permit major repairs. Will he also permit vessels under repair to have crew changes and catch changes, so that east coast shipyards will be able to repair the foreign fishing vessels which we now control within our 200-mile economic zone?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, if I were to consider going where the hon. member suggests, I might discuss it with him on the way since he knows the way from the provincial to the federal field. I would tell him that some Liberals in his own riding asked me if I was intersted in running in Newfoundland.
Mr. Speaker, the matter of port access is before us. As the hon. member knows, we are engaged in bilateral negotiations with two major components of our foreign fisheries relations. I have always said that port access should be exchanged for other economic developments. I am willing to look at ad hoc cases which come before me, and authorize negotiations under the Fisheries Protection Act. I am very sympathetic in the case of the port in which the hon. member is interested.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman would be a fish out of water if he went to Newfoundland. There are thousands of shipyard workers in Nova Scotia, and hundreds in Newfoundland who can be kept employed or whose employment could expand if this change came into effect. I ask the minister when there will be a definite announcement on whether this policy is going to change, in order to permit our shipyards to negotiate with the foreign companies involved and obtain this additional work. Newfoundland should be a service station in the North Atlantic for these fleets, but it is stopped at the moment. When can we have a definite, final policy?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have not prevented discussions between one major company and one country from taking place. I am sure that if they agree to conditions and prices, it will be authorized. The hon. member-and I say this because he is a former minister of fisheries with whom I had very good relations-recognizes that access to ports at a time when we do not have jurisdiction beyond 200 miles, and other conditions which we want to attach to protect the fisheries, can become a bargaining point in our bilateral agreements. For that reason I am not willing to rush into port access except on an ad hoc basis where our vital interest is protected.

February 1, 1978
Oral Questions TRANSPORT


REPLACEMENT FOR S.S. &quot;CARSON&quot;-LOCATION OF SHIPYARD UNDERTAKING CONSTRUCTION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must say I appreciate that last observation made by the Minister of Fisheries. I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister indicate whether, in fact, officials of his department are now outside Canada seeking to place an order for replacement of the CN ferry Carson which sank off the Labrador coast late last year?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, no firm position has been taken at this point in time for a replacement for the Carson. Officials of my department and of CN Marine are always alert in an effort to find out which vessels may be available for additional service in the ferry systems in the eastern part of the country. I have no doubt they are interested at all times to know at what prices they might be able to acquire vessels of various configurations. That, of course, goes alongside the question that we are looking at for the future, that is, replacement of a vessel three or four years from now. Obviously, we would look much harder at the question of constructing such a vessel in Canada.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question arises from the fact, as I understand it, that the ministry has not canvassed Canadian shipyard capacity which, as everyone knows, is greatly reduced. I wonder if the minister, in association with his colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, could give an undertaking that there will be a revamped and revised policy by the government toward shipbuilding in Canada. In addition, could the minister, on behalf of the government, undertake to give the assurance that during periods of undue slackness and underutilization of our Canadian shipyards, particularly in light of the thousands of jobs that have been lost in recent months and will be lost over the next two or three months, Canadian government requirements will be for Canadian designed and Canadian built ships?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the hon. member continued with his supplementary question, because I had already said that if we were looking at the construction of a vessel which would be available several years hence, we would very clearly be interested in the question of Canadian construction, with the jobs that would go with it and the use of idle shipyards. I hope that the hon. gentleman will recognize that if what we are after is a vessel for the coming season, there is no possibility of constructing such a vessel in that time period, and we may therefore, very reasonably, go outside the country to charter a vessel not built in Canada, as a temporary measure to meet the real needs of people wanting to travel between the Atlantic provinces.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Deputy Prime Minister. In view of the fact that Foothills Pipe Lines cannot call for tenders and steel plants in Canada cannot make plans for production for the proposed Alcan pipeline until they know the result of negotiations between the technical committees of the United States and Canada, can the minister tell the House the state of those negotiations respecting specifications for pipe? Can he assure the House that the negotiators for Canada will not allow themselves to be outmanoeuvred regarding specifications which rule out most, if not all, of the Canadian steel industry? Also, can he tell the House when we will have those specifications?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, joint technical discussions have taken place between officials on our side, namely, the National Energy Board, and officials of the United States. The United States has undertaken further studies on its own, as I understand it. Nevertheless, it is the intention of the National Energy Board to make a decision on pipe size, I would say within two weeks. Of course, the pipe size is a matter within the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board because it does have responsibility for assuring safety standards and reliability within Canadian territory.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion? In view of the fact that the agreement on the pipeline was reached months ago, and in view of the announcements by the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister regarding Canadian content, Canadian construction and Canadian pipe, will the minister-even though I might be worried-accept the statements and the commitments of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister at face value and proceed at once with the contribution by his department toward the $80 million expansion for the Interprovincial Steel Company plants in Regina and Edmonton, so they may proceed to produce a major portion of the pipe for that line?
[ Translation]


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this proposal was brought before our Department some time ago and we are considering it in conjunction with that company and the provincial authorities. It will probably take a few weeks before we will be able to bring together all the facts and elements that will help up make up our minds as take a decision about the way this project can be worked out.
February 1, 1978


NORTHERN PIPELINE-REQUEST FOR EARLY INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Erik Nieisen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister has been promising the House the pipeline legislation for months. It is a matter which went through the United States Congress last year. Obviously, it is going to be a complicated and lengthy bill, with great economic problems and others which must be discussed by hon. members. In order that we may acquaint ourselves with the provisions of this bill, rather than being confronted with a rushed, last-minute debate, will the minister indicate that he will bring the bill before the House before the end of this week, or at the latest on Monday, with ten days or two weeks set aside for members to study it before second reading debate?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can advise the hon. member that I propose to give notice of the bill today. We will give it first reading at the end of the week, or early next week, and we will commence the debate just as soon as hon. members have had an opportunity to study the bill. I doubt whether the length of time requested by the hon. member is required in order to examine the qualities of this bill.


THE CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services who is responsible for the Mint. Will the Minister say whether a decision has been made not to introduce the new metric one-cent coins because of the fact that any change in coin sizes costs hundreds of millions of dollars, especially to coin machine operators, vending machine operators, etc? Will the minister say whether the Mint now has secret designs which will result in the introduction of metric-sized coins in denominations of 20 cents, 40 cents and 80 cents to replace existing coinage?


Mr. Woolliams:: Bring back the five-cent coffee, too.


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, the Mint has no secret designs and, as a matter of fact, the Mint was thinking of issuing a new one-cent coin. But since it costs us two cents to make a one-cent coin and since our designs were so well known that people involved in the private market and in the public sector were opposed to the issuance of this new coin, we have cancelled this project.
It is true that we are considering a new proposal which we and the people involved intend to assess with a view to lowering our operating costs.
Oral Questions


Peter Colwell Bawden: Would the minister tell us whether the new one-cent coins were minted and, if so, at what cost? Would he also tell us why these changes in size were made? If it was to reduce the cost, would the hon. gentleman explain why the Mint did not simply change the alloys going into the coins but left them the same size, since this would have eliminated horrendous problems for the Toronto subway authority, for instance, and towns which have installed parking meters.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is partly right: it is a matter of size, but also of weight. When the alloy used for the one-cent coin is changed, private enterprise as well as public services, such as the Toronto and Montreal transport commissions, run into trouble. We want to change the one-cent coin precisely because it costs us $6 million more than it brings in.
We are looking at new proposals and the pilot project cost $5,000. To my mind that is not prohibitive considering the fact that we are trying to save $6 million.


INDUSTRY
Simma Holt: Mr. Speaker, my question was to have been directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In his absence I will direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with all the pressure being brought to bear in this House for protection for industry in central Canada-for example, the shoe industry, textiles and, now, the newest inequity, steel-at a cost to the economic health of the outer reaches of Canada. I have in mind British Columbia. In view of the fact that British Columbia has never been a market for Algoma wide-flange steel, would the hon. gentleman tell us why British Columbia was included in the decision of the anti-dumping tribunal to increase the cost of imported steel to the construction industry of British Columbia?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can assure the hon. member that, as a person from the outer reaches of Canada, I am seriously concerned about the problem she has raised. I want to tell her that the matter is presently before the government for consideration, and we are expecting and awaiting further information on this question from the government of British Columbia.
80031 -13
Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE

February 1, 1978


ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL ENGAGED IN SEARCH FOR REMAINS OF SOVIET SATELLITE
Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I may say I am appalled by the emphasis the minister is placing on the harsh environment of northern Canada, as if it were the first time anyone in this government realized that this was a cold climate and there are thousands of people living and working in such an environment every day. I should like to ask whether armed forces personnel now at Churchill, Manitoba, and involved in winter warfare training were engaged in searching for the remains of the satellite which came down in Canadian territory.


Barnett Jerome Danson: No,
Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. Most of the personnel engaged in the search came from Edmonton and Yellowknife; none has been drawn from Churchill. If they are required, they can be made available.


Cecil Morris Smith: Is active consideration being given to the removal of the remaining 35 armed forces families presently in Churchill to other locations for winter warfare training?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think it is an overstatement to say active consideration is being given to that question. A review of all our bases is a regular practice intended to increase the efficiency of the forces. It is possible that Churchill is under consideration, as it has been before, but I have no change immediately planned for the future.


INDUSTRY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister and is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway, who has taken up a subject first raised by my hon. friend from Capilano. Given that there is real concern on both sides of the House about this decision by the anti-dumping tribunal, would the Acting Prime Minister, in the interest of making parliament effective in dealing with regional concerns, agree to make an immediate reference of the decision of the anti-dumping tribunal on December 29, 1977, to the appropriate committee of the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We hope to be able to reach a decision on this question shortly. It may be that in the circumstances reference to a standing committee would delay a decision on the matter, one which is urgently required.


Charles Joseph Clark: It should be understood that our concern is that this decision did not adequately represent regional realities.

There is very real concern that the same lack of attention will be displayed by the government. One way to ensure that the legitimate regional interests of British Columbia are expressed would be by affording an opportunity before a standing committee of the House of Commons for British Columbia members to make their case directly. Why does the Acting Prime Minister deny that right to a standing committee of the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the Opposition need not be afraid that the regional interests of British Columbia are not being vigorously pressed forward by Liberal members and by ministers from British Columbia. If that is his concern, I can assure him that it is groundless.


INVESTIGATION INTO CONDUCT OF MEMBER- ACTION TAKEN BY RCMP
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. Would the hon. gentleman confirm to the House that a Liberal member of parliament has been charged by the RCMP for influence-peddling?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm that because I am not responsible, nor do I have official information on the subject.


John Edward Broadbent: I did not get the minister's answer precisely, but since a press report is now out to the effect that the member has been charged, I assume the Deputy Prime Minister will check this soon and have some kind of report made to the House, whether the charge was that of influence-peddling and whether departments other than the House of Commons, for example, were involved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In order to make the situation absolutely clear so that there might be no question of misunderstanding later, I should like to say that the investigation into the conduct of the hon. member mentioned by the leader of the New Democratic Party was launched under the authority of the Speaker. It is my view that any further information on the subject ought to be sought from that source, because this is a matter of parliamentary conduct. I have received some information on the subject-I want to make that clear-but I believe it might be better if the channel to which I have referred were followed in this case.
February 1, 1978


INDUSTRY
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is absent, 1 shall direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Further to the federal-provincial conference of trade and commerce ministers this week, it was shown that Canada has lost 84,000 jobs in the last thirteen months, 30,000 being in the province of Quebec. In view of these facts, can the minister tell us whether his government intends to take immediate action to put an end to this current massive closure of industries?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, first I must set the facts straight. As for the number mentioned, I believe there was a printing error in the newspaper. I think the number mentioned was rather 34,000 jobs lost during that period in the manufacturing sector, including roughly 30,000 in certain industrial sectors of Quebec. As for the purport of the hon. member's question, certain measures have of course been adopted, for example certain quotas have been applied to imports in two programs, also some support has been given to certain industries. As the hon. member knows, our department has already started a program to help certain industrial sectors in the province of Quebec, particularly in Montreal.


Roch La Salle: I would like to ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I realize the efforts the government is now making to correct the situation. Since these propositions will probably have medium and long-term effects, is the minister prepared to urge his government to call together all the industrial sectors in order to have this government and these heads of industry develop a very special strategy designed to stop at last those shutdowns we see from day to day? I want to know if the minister would be prepared to recommend such a meeting with the government to develop a special strategy in this regard.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that our measures also have short-term effects. Some of them are already felt by industry and recognized as having been beneficial to them. Moreover, I would like to add that such meetings as suggested by the hon. member have already taken place and are still taking place fairly regularly because we do have a consultation process with the heads of the industries mentioned by the hon. member. Those consultations will surely go on so that the measures we have to apply get maximum results and that industries can comply with the measures we have developed for them.
Privilege-Mr. Jarvis


INVESTIGATION INTO CONDUCT OF MEMBER
Mr. Speaker:: In reference to the matter just raised a moment ago, I think it is appropriate for me to inform the House before carrying on with any other business that the investigation which I undertook to request on behalf of the House into allegations which appeared some time ago in at least one national newspaper concerning one member of the House has been ongoing. During the course of it, there were developments reported to me which I in turn conveyed in a regular way to the House leaders. Yesterday I was advised, and I in turn advised the House leaders of all parties, that in fact a charge as a result of that investigation had been laid against the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney).


PRIVILEGE
William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the commencement of the question period, the last question that I put to the Acting Solicitor General (Mr. Basford) may have resulted in a little bit of confusion. What I had intended to ask-I have not seen the blues but what I believe I did ask-was whether a certain telex from Sergeant d'Entremont to Superintendent Nowlan related to operation "Ham". I referred specifically to the telex in the list of documents forming a schedule to the then solicitor general's affidavit of October 12. I referred specifically to item 24 on that list.
What my question may have indicated to the Acting Solicitor General was whether the subject matter of that telex was completely or at least in part relating to operation "Ham". What I intended to ask was did it relate in any way to operation "Ham"?
In that there now appears to have been two telex messages between the two officers, the Acting Solicitor General, in the interests of clearing up what is an increasingly confusing issue, may consider tabling these two telex. I suggest that particularly because, if one believes the press reports, the solicitor before the Keable commission for the RCMP is quoted as saying that his clients have no objection whatsoever to making those two documents public.
That final judgment has to rest, of course, with the Solicitor General. However, there did appear as a result of my questions, and the Acting Solicitor General's answer to my last question in particular, some confusion which he and I discused very briefly.
I raise this by way of a question of privilege first, so that the Acting Solicitor General may clear up any uncertainty that
80031 -13%

February 1, 1978
Petitions
exists in his mind and, second, that he might consider advising the House whether he deems it advisable in the very serious circumstances to table these two telex.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's rising. After the exchange of questions, I went to him to see whether there was any confusion in his mind. My earlier answer indicated that in the annex to the Solicitor General's telegram there were three documents that had been excluded under section 41(2) of the Federal Court Act on the basis that they referred to other matters. I indicated in my answer there were three of them that had a file number in them that subsequently proved to be the operation "Ham" file number. That answer would include his last question.
Just so that we are precisely clear, the telex that the hon. member refers to, telex B526 listed in the annex, has within it the file number of the "Ham" file. It does not have the word "Ham" in it and does not deal with the subject matter of "Ham" or the PQ break-in.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Kaplan.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), 1 wish to table in the House in both official languages copies of proposals to correct certain anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms, errors and other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature in the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1970, and other acts subsequent to 1970.
« * *

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the table the third report of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. 
Herbert) 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.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 276, 300, 417, 982, 983, and 1024.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Canadian Commercial Corporation obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Canadian Commercial Corporation in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	(a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Nil. (v) 1975: 8; 1976: 15. (b) Not applicable.
2.	Main estimates.
3.	(a)(i) $7.27. (ii) $7.50. (b) Not known. (c)(i) $10,630. (ii) $18,739.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iii) Saskatchewan (iv) Manitoba (v) Ontario (vi) Quebec (vii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: 1.	(a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) Not applicable, (v) 6. (b) Not applicable.
2.	Main estimates.
3.	(a)(i) Not applicable, (ii) $5.41. (b) Not known. (c)(i) Not applicable, (ii) $5,000.
February 1, 1978


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was or has carpet been purchased by the government for the new Employment and Immigration office on King Street East, Brockville, Ontario and, if so (a) from whom (b) on what date (c) at what price per square yard (d) what was the total cost?
2.	Were tenders called to permit local suppliers to bid on such requirements and (a) if so (i) on what date (ii) in each case, what is the name of the tenderer and the amount (b) if not, for what reason?


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: 1. No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.
2. (a)(i) and (ii) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


Mr. Howie: Has DREE (a) agreed (b) been asked to financially support the cost of construction of a bridge over the Saint John River at Fredericton, New Brunswick and, if so, will it assist financially in this project?


Mr. Donald Wood (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) No. (b) No.


Mr. Howie: Has DREE (a) agreed (b) been asked to financially support the cost of construction of a highway from Fredericton to Saint John, New Brunswick?


Donald Paul Wood: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: (a) No. (b) No.


Mr. Epp: Is the Canada Council, the National Film Board or the Canadian Film Development Board in any way contributing Financially to the film being produced in Montreal entitled "Kings and Desperate Men" and, if so, in what amount and for what specifically?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Canada Council, the National Film Board and the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: No.


Mr. Andres:: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Energy


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 56 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 56-Mr. Broadbent:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of all documents relating to Royal Canadian Mounted Police investigations that were incinerated by the RCMP on June 2 and June 3, 1977.
Motion agreed to.
William Andres: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, January 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources), that Bill C-19, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Order made yesterday, January 31, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.
I think there was some discussion last evening that the House would try to move to the taking of the division in 15 minutes time. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.
Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.


FISHING AND RECREATIONAL HARBOURS ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, January 31, 1978, consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent) that Bill C-2, respecting the administration and development of certain fishing and recreational harbours in Canada, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is my understanding that at the conclusion of the debate last evening, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) had the floor. Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity in committee and through the debates in the House to take a good look at the bill before the House. It is such a short bill which contains so little that one could easily overlook its true significance. The significance of the bill is that the minister will have authority to increase to a large extent the fee structure for fishermen on the east and west coasts. We in this party are not opposed to rationalization of the small harbours system and we are not opposed to ending the idea that a fisherman can tie up at one wharf for nothing but at another wharf he has to pay the wharfinger.
I know that the minister is attempting through this legislation to solve this kind of inequity, but there are some real reasons for which we feel as a matter of principle we cannot support the bill. One of the fundamental principles which we in this party support is that one should not take the public's property and turn it over to the private sector and leave those in the fishing industry unprotected. Under section 8 this bill contains the clear provision that the minister may, subject to the regulations, lease any scheduled harbour or any part thereof to any person. First of all, I see nothing in this bill which would protect fishermen against moorage fees, which may amount to whatever the traffic can bear as far as the private lessee of that marina is concerned, or nothing to prevent the lessee deciding he does not want fishermen on his docks but just wants big yachts, because obviously he can make more money from yachts. I see the minister shaking his head and I hope he will correct us.
I do not see anything in the bill which guarantees that if the minister decides, under the powers of this legislation, to transfer a public small harbour to the private sector, fishermen will be protected in terms of the regulated fee under the act. I cannot imagine any private entrepreneur taking it on that basis without some flexibility in terms of the kinds of fees that a private entrepreneur would take.
What is really passing strange in this bill appears when one reads the record of evidence in committee and the statements made by the minister in the House about the whole question of the fee structure. On November 15, as recorded at page 2:5 of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, Mr. Reid, who looks after the small harbours division in the minister's department, said the following:
February 1, 1978

Some fishermen pay and others are not paying, depending on whether or not there is a government wharfinger to collect the charges. In fact, we have a number of outstanding court cases in which fishermen ought to have paid charges, and they have not, and their neighbours a few villages away have paid. This has caused us considerable concern.
I agree with him that this should cause concern. Ele goes on to say:
The amount of money that we are anticipating collecting in the first year, should we introduce this new scheme of charging everyone, would be extremely modest and, in fact, would only equal what we are collecting today.
That was an assurance in committee that the total amount of fees taken from commercial fishermen will not be any higher.
Let us go into the rest of the evidence. We come now to the minister's statement on January 31, 1978 made in the House when he said the following about the fees to be charged to fishermen. It is to be found at page 2414 of Hansard of that day. He said:
However, let me assure the House that no decision has been made in respect of the details of a new fee structure. Fishermen are not going to wake up with the passage of this legislation to find they have to pay the federal government "X" number of dollars.
He did not specify the number of dollars. Then he went on to say:
I believe we should continue with our present system, with all its shortcomings, for the present, without making any charges until the health of the fishery improves and subsidies in that area are reduced. What we intend to do now is discuss with fishermen and their organizations how we can achieve a modest and equitable fee structure that would allow both better management of facilities and better on-site services for Canada's commercial fishermen. Certainly I cannot emphasize this enough.
Let us look at the evidence given by the man who actually runs the system, namely, Mr. Reid. This is what he testified in front of the committee on November 24, just before the bill came out of committee:
The level of charge will be modest and reflect regional differences; in fact, we have proposed that it should range from a low of $1 per foot per year in the Atlantic regions and Quebec to $2 per foot per year in the Pacific.
That evidence indicates a 63 per cent increase in the present moorage charges in the province of British Columbia, which is the evidence I have, and the minister can re-examine that. It indicates a tremendous discrimination between one coast and the other. I am not suggesting that there should not be some discrimination in favour of those who are least able to pay, but the myth that the commercial fishermen of British Columbia are wealthy entrepreneurs just does not bear close examination. In fact, there is a great number of fishermen in British Columbia for whom the moorage fees are key to their operation and to whether they can make a satisfactory living. We are talking of up to $2,000 a year for licence fees in B.C. When you keep adding all these drips and dabs in B.C., where does that leave us? That kind of discrimination is completely unsatisfactory and unnecessary, and if we pass this bill we give a blank cheque to the minister to impose whatever fee he wants with regard to commercial fisheries.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
I do not think this minister has done a bad job. I do not want to carp and criticize everything, but if I was a commercial fisherman, I would not buy a pig in a poke. If I was a commercial fisherman, I would want a commitment, before the minister was given the powers contained in this bill, as to what his charges will be and how many wharfingers will be hired in the province of B.C. Are these wharfingers to be local Liberals who happen to be unemployed? That question always comes up. One of the minister's principal problems might be to find Liberals to handle these jobs. Things are getting pretty rough. We do not know how many wharfingers the minister intends to add to the rolls. Some wharfingers in British Columbia work eight hours and then nip down to pick up fees at the docks. Those people are called wharfingers, but if that is the kind of wharfinger we are going to add to the ones we already have, the government can forget about it. We do not need part-time wharfingers and moonlighters. If we are going to have wharfingers, fishermen want people who will properly manage docks so they will get something for their money.
Another myth abroad is that fishermen are mooring for nothing all over the place, and they are not. It depends, but at the docks where they are allegedly mooring for nothing a fisherman would not want to tie up his boat because it might be cut adrift the next day, boats might have to get over sand bars to get to the docks, no dredging is done, the docks are rotting right into the ocean, and there is no breakwater at all.
I do not object to the idea that we should spend more money on small harbours. The minister has not spent enough money on small harbours. We can be putting public money into those harbours, but I do not see why commercial fishermen have to bear the burden. I do not see why we should take one section of the economy and let it carry the can for something this government has allowed to decline over the last 20 or 30 years.
Another reason this bill should not be approved is that there has been a remarkable lack of consultation with those involved. I know the minister has been out to the coast. I know he has had meetings with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union. However, as I recall, the minister did not have those meetings prior to this bill going through committee. The fishermen's union was not invited to make representations to the committee with regard to this bill. That particular union, which is the most seriously affected, submitted a very lengthy and detailed brief on this subject to the minister, and my information is that that brief has not been responded to in any detailed way. The minister did spend some two and a half hours, but he did not spend two and a half hours with the representatives of that union on the question of moorage fees. He spent his time on salmon enhancement problems, with boundary problems and with U.S.-Canada treaty problems-


Roméo LeBlanc: And Bill C-2.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: -but how much time was spent on Bill C-2? Very little out of that two and a half hour meeting. Perhaps that is consultation in the way this government operates, but it is not meaningful consultation. Surely those who are most seriously affected by the fees should have the principal input in

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
terms of how the program is going to work and which docks are going to become staffed docks at which there will be charges.
It is perhaps typical of this government that it moves first and asks questions of the groups most affected later, but it is wrong. Having this bill in his hand will improve the minister's bargaining position with regard to fees charged to fishermen on the west coast, but I am not particularly interested in strengthening the minister's hand. The people who need help are the fishermen, not the minister. Therefore, what we should be doing is denying the minister this bill and letting him go back to the coast to meet with Pacific trawlers, the UFAWU, the native brotherhood and all the fishing groups to develop a consensus for a bill which the people affected can accept.
That is not what the minister has done. He is going to give them a bill. If they do not like it, he will listen to them for ten minutes, but they are going to get it anyway. The minister is going to ram it down the throats of British Columbia fishermen, and this being so I suggest that there will be a real problem. Some fishermen may not obey the law, and I would regret that, but the kind of approach one takes to legislation has to be considered with care. It is important to get a consensus of the commercial fishing industry of B.C. That consensus is important if there is to be no problem collecting moorage charges.
With regard to clause 8, the question of the minister's capacity to transfer public property to the private sector, I am concerned about the minister's lack of capacity to guarantee fishermen that the rates set by regulation will be maintained by the private sector and the failure to guarantee that services to vessels will be properly maintained. That is a fundamental flaw. The number of mooring stations for commercial fishermen will be reduced because the private sector wants to handle big yachts from Seattle and get the people with the bucks to pay more and more moorage fees. This is a beautiful opportunity for the minister to abandon his reponsibility to commercial Fishermen on the coast.
There are many problems in the fishing industry. The minister has not resolved the uncertainty of the A and B licensing system, and in my discussions with fishermen I learned that that is causing very real concern on the coast. The minister has not made an announcement with regard to the phase-out. I think he is putting the cart before the horse again. Fishermen want to know where they are going with regard to their licensing system.
The small harbours matter is something which could have been left alone. Fishermen would like to know whether Canada will have any clout with regard to setting boundaries. Indications are that we have given up on the Dixon entrance and on the boundary in the riding of the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) which was set by international treaty. Indications are that we are bungling on the salmon negotiations. We are not standing up. The minister cannot expect to earn the confidence of the fishing industry when Canada is rolled over by the Americans on these negotiations. The minister's department says it is doing a great job. It
[Mr. Leggatt.j
tells fishermen to forget about those negotiations and that it will increase moorage fees this year. The department says it is going to put the matter of small harbours on a sound foundation. How can fishermen have confidence in this kind of legislation when nothing has been done about other matters?
With regard to the transfer of public property to private enterprise, if the minister would limit that provision to municipal or provincial authority and limit the capacity of that authority to set moorage rates beyond those set by regulation under the legislation, then I think he would have the support of fishermen. Unless I have misread the bill, control of power to regulate fees under the terms of the lease arrangement would be lost. From a practical point of view the bill would be useless because no private marina would be interested in obtaining a public small harbour unless it had flexibility in regard to fees. Those people are in business to make a profit and are not going to hold on to the property under lease if they are losing money.
There are a lot of areas in this country other than commercial fishermen that can be taxed. If more money is needed for small harbours it is available from many areas that have been undertaxed in the past, such as the western empire which derives as much benefit from the fishing industry as any other class in Canada. Tax concessions are granted at the top level and that is where additional money could be obtained.
If we increase the number of wharfingers there is no guarantee that they will be full time wharfingers, no guarantee of their training, of what kind of people will be hired to do the job or whether the last canvasser of the Liberal party just walks down to the end of the dock and takes his position in the little hut. Most of all, there is a lack of consultation with the groups affected.
All these things lead me to the firm conclusion that this bill is premature, Mr. Speaker, and that the government should withdraw it. The minister should take another trip to the west coast and instead of just spending two and a half hours talking on the subject of moorage payments he should spend a day with the fishermen, go up to Skeena for a day or out to the Island for a day, and then come back to this bill. I cannot accept the evidence given in committee to the effect that fishermen are crying for this legislation because that just is not true, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, when I heard the minister's remarks at the opening of the debate I thought that I would not speak. I have a fair degree of confidence in him and respect for his ability, sincerity and integrity relative to other cabinet ministers in this government. Of course, that qualifies my commendation somewhat. I felt that the minister had addressed the problems that I raised in committee but upon reading Hansard today I found a number of qualifications that led me to believe he was perhaps using a delaying tactic. Perhaps he hoped I could be convinced to keep quiet and that the fees could be slipped into place and the bill passed. That is what my concern centres upon.

I am well aware, as are west coast fishermen, that the governor in council sets the fees under this bill and that the proclamation in the Gazette is not to be made just yet. My concern is that there should be some indication of the nature of the fees prior to passage of the bill. I expressed that concern in committee and as a result the minister presented samples of the fees that were anticipated and defended them. He stated clearly that he wants a different fee schedule for each region. The figures shown to the committee indicated that west coast fishermen will pay twice as much as their east coast counterparts. I can tell the minister that they do not like that.
The minister admits that for years inequity has been perpetrated by the Liberal government, that the administration has been inadequate and management of our harbours poor. This is the minister's own condemnation of previous ministers and this government's efforts in the fisheries industry. We are glad the government took note of our demand for change and brought this type of bill forward. We are pleased to hear they are concerned about inadequate administration and management and the history of inequalities which they claim will disappear.
The minister speaks of erasing inequalities and then goes on to say he will recognize regional differences. I should like him to recognize regional differences in the sense that the problems of the fisheries of British Columbia are not necessarily the same as those on the east coast but must be treated differently. That does not mean they should be treated differently on the basis of fee schedules or ability to pay but, rather, that the fee structure should be based on the cost of services provided. The sample presented by the minister indicated that this factor will not be taken into account.
We already have equalization in our federal system. The income tax system is supposed to redistribute income in an equitable manner. There is also the system of equilization payments between provinces which is supposed to equalize the level of services between regions. These two federal concerns at least have some clear cut direction in theory if not in practice. Then we have a whole host of federal policy initiatives with scattered effects which dot each department.
The sum total of all these initiatives to develop equalization is actually a terrible mess and the proposed fee schedule is just one more feature. We have tariffs, transportation rates, DREE programs, the Canada Works program and so on. I am concerned that this should not be just another method of redistributing income. There are other provisions and other bills to this effect. If we want to redistribute income we should use the existing programs of income tax and equalization and not carry the burden forward. We should recognize that some fishermen in British Columbia are competent and successful but that not all fishermen in British Columbia can be classed in the same way. There are poor fishermen in British Columbia just as there are in the Atlantic provinces. In fact, to be a poor fisherman in British Columbia is more a severe plight than to be a poor fisherman in the Atlantic region because the costs are so much higher, the competition is so much keener and tougher, in that province.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Let me make this point very strongly. I want the minister to stand up and tell us that the fee schedule will not be based on ability to pay but will be charged equally to all fishermen in British Columbia; that instead it will be a fee that relates to the cost of service and the quality of service that is provided to those fishermen.
The new berthing charges do not grasp the user-pay concept, as well they should not. Motorists do not pay for the total cost of highways directly, nor do airline patrons have to shell out for the whole cost of airports. Fishermen should not be the exception to the rule and should not be expected to pay for the full cost of servicing their industry. The berthing charges will be directed to the salaries of harbour managers. There is little reason why these people would be paid twice as much in British Columbia on the west coast as they are on the east coast, so why should the charges as indicated in the fee schedule be twice as much in British Columbia? If a fee must be charged it must be a consistent fee between the regions. The differences should be recognized in the nature of the fisheries, but not in the nature of the fee schedule.
The minister has made much of his willingness to meet with the fishermen on their own turf. He has visited the area and he has directed his officials to become acquainted with the fishermen. I appreciate the initiatives of the minister. I know these reports are true. I have received a very good response from officials in his department. They are endeavouring to be open and are prepared to bring information forward. 1 commend him for that. But yet while we see this openness, it just has not quite worked as far as consultation goes.
I have made assumptions and I took it for granted that when this bill came to committee the fishermen would in fact be invited to give testimony. In committee I questioned this very carefully. I asked if this fee schedule had been accepted by the fishermen in British Columbia and if they had been consulted. It is on record in Hansard. I was assured by the witnesses testifying, by the minister and I believe by one of the Liberal backbenchers, that in fact such consultation had taken place. I could not believe that the British Columbia fishermen would agree to pay a fee schedule twice as much as the east coast fishermen. But I was given that assurance.
I took those assurances and the minutes and I sent them to British Columbia to the fishermen's union. What do you know? The fishermen wrote back. Referring to C-2, Jack Nichol, president of the United Fishermen's and Allied Workers' Union, in a December 5 letter to the minister, stated:
At no time was our union contacted or consulted on this matter.
The union was referring to the matter of fees. So that consultation had not in fact taken place. The promise that the minister gives me today is now somewhat in doubt. Once the minister, someone in his department, or one of his officials have misled us about this consultation, we become doubtful and sceptical. And, Mr. Speaker, you can hardly blame us for that in this instance.
2446

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
While I have a reasonable amount of faith in him as the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, I am rather concerned that he might in fact leave this chamber. If that were to be so, I would be very concerned about giving these broad powers to another minister who might not exercise them with the discretion that this minister appears willing to exercise.
With respect to this fee schedule, we may have to look at it again. It should be put in an amended form before we pass it. It should be considered further and perhaps even a section taken out of the bill for more study. Maybe a commitment could be made to us that the fee schedule will be attached by amendment to the bill in the next session of the House- something along this line to assure that the fishermen and all those who are directly affected can appear and make their points known to us prior to the passing of this bill. Rather than giving full discretion to the minister, perhaps there should be some limitation imposed.
I am concerned that this after-the-fact consultation is a feature, not only of this particular minister, but of government departments. In all forms of environmental legislation we constantly have the attitude: "Yes, we are concerned, but let us build the plant now and see about it later". The one exception has been the Fisheries Act. Again, I am a little concerned about this act because it is masquerading a little bit. I wish that the minister would put a little more emphasis on the fact that this is a major environmental bill, that the powers the minister has taken unto himself are in fact the only veto powers to any development available in any bill before this House respecting before-the-fact legislation.
This bill has great environmental potential. It also has a great capacity for abuse. To give an example, if I were to touch my toe in the water, I could be considered a pollutant and the development would stop. That is not a confession relative to the cleanliness of my feet!
I suggest to the minister that he consider interfacing this bill with another bill relating to the environmental impact assessment or assure us whether or not it is an environmental bill. Will it in fact be used in that capacity in lieu of other legislation? These are questions which remain unanswered and are of concern to the fishermen on the west coast.
I am pleased to see that my representations which I have made continually since I have been here as a member of the House of Commons regarding recreational boating promotion have resulted from the fact that British Columbia has a tremendous coastline but has virtually no facilities for small boats. Small boats are constantly being forced to travel to the United States in order to gain berthing in Bellingham and Blaine. There is a great demand and need for recreational boating and for harbours in British Columbia. I am pleased to see that the minister has recognized this need after much pushing from myself and others. An hon. member seems to question when I have done this. If the hon. member will look at the first speech which I gave in the House of Commons, he will find it there. If he would review the committee meetings for the fisheries department he will find it there too. In addition to that, if the minister would like to consult my constituents who
[Mr. Wenman.J
have worked with the minister to assist in bringing information forward, he will find it again, and again.
I have one small doubt here concerning the improvement, expansion and the updating of wharves. With respect to the wharf at Ruskin, where the local council and the local fishermen need the wharf, I received notice two months ago that they are tearing it down. This matter does not seem to jell when we are talking of maintaining, rebuilding and expanding. At the same time I am trying to tell the people of the area that the Minister is saying the wharf must be torn down. This is just an example of policy which needs to be referred to the minister's department to check. Are they operating under the auspices of this bill or are they still operating on the theory of efficiency with a lot of cutting back over the past few years?
With those points in mind I would like to say that I approve of the principle of this bill, the consolidation of it and the fact that the minister will be able to make decisions and actually do something concrete under the provisions thereof. Those are the positive aspects and the reason why the bill should pass.
But there are weaknesses. There is great concern for Canadian unity in this country and the recognition of the differences of the regions. But for goodness sake we must not play one coast against the other coast. Equity must be found, and I am sure it will be found if there is further and better consultation on the fee structure and the other items which are concerning our fishermen.


Hugh Alan Anderson: unable to enter into an agreement with it for management of the facility.
I wish the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) were here because he brought this point up and used it to illustrate why he is against this particular section of the legislation. But, Mr. Speaker, when a group of fishermen, on their own initiative, wish to take over the management of a small wharf or pier in an isolated area, we are prevented under the present legislation from allowing them to do so. Under the new legislation we shall be able to allow people such as those in a union local to take over a pier and run it to their best advantage, and I am very surprised that the hon. member for New Westminster did not apprise himself of that situation. Knowing his concern with respect to unions, I would have expected him to support a bill which would increase the government's authority to make decisions for the benefit of fishermen's co-operatives. I mention this point in passing because it was also referred to by the official opposition critic. Again, I would point out that this bill would give the minister greater flexibility because, if I am correct, the legislation under which we are presently operating originated in 1938.
As I said earlier, the government is unable to enter into what we consider good arrangements at the present time. It also has to be said that leasing applies to more than the wharves. It applies to upland properties on which producers may wish to locate, to fishermen who require gear and storage facilities, fish buyers, etc. Under the present legislation we are not able to enter into an agreement with fishermen to provide these services. In the absence of this authority to enter into reasonable term leases, processors and others will not invest money in buildings and plants at harbours.
I see that the hon. member for New Westminster is back in his place. I hope he reads Hansard to see that I have pointed out that in Sointula-I am sure he knows where that is-a fishermen's co-operative could not lease a wharf because under the terms of the old legislation we cannot lease to individuals. I wish he would check and make sure that I am correct because we are attempting, in the bill before us, to provide more flexibility in order to deal with groups such as native groups and fishermen's co-operatives. This measure would enable us to turn over the management of these facilities to such group's. At the present time we are not able to do this.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Hugh Alan Anderson: I would be more than pleased to entertain a question at the close of my remarks.
To move on to the criticisms concerning the abandonment and destruction of facilities, let me remind hon. members opposite that the department has not abandoned any usable and useful small craft harbour facilities. I would say that some facilities have been abandoned as no longer being used. These are few in number and account for less than one per cent of the facilities.
In total, facilities have increased. However, it is obvious it makes no economic sense to spend money on facilities which
Fishing and Recreational Harbours are no longer required while leaving harbours used by fishermen to go begging. The government's approach is a rational one-to improve facilities where required and to abandon those no longer serving any useful purpose. As a result of consultation with municipalities and members of this House, facilities which are borderline have often been improved over the last few years through the Canada Works and similar government programs, using local labour, thereby providing a double spin-off in terms of employment and usable facilities for which departmental priorities would not normally dictate the expenditure of funds.
On the recreational side, although limited funds are expended these do contribute to the public's access to the water, as well as providing economic benefit in terms of employment. I should make it clear that federal funds allocated to community marina developments contain guarantees that such facilities are always open and available to the public. This program recognizes the importance of recreational boating and the rapidly expanding demand for public berthing. Of course, the government is not in a position to develop and operate totally recreational facilities. Our position is one of assistance in areas of greatest need.
Turning to the matter of consultation with the provinces, I can assure hon. members opposite that consultation did take place with regard to this bill on many occasions. As recently as the summer of 1977, the provinces were again asked for their views. Apparently some members have forgotten the committee discussions covering this point. We are not surprised by criticism emanating from certain newspapers in different parts of Canada, but surely members of the committee were apprised of the situation and correspondence was produced during the committee hearings.
I wish to comment on the matter of fees. I notice that the hon. member who spoke immediately before me is no longer here. There is good reason for the fact that in the bill itself no schedule of fees is set down. During the committee hearings the former director of small craft harbours explained that no fee system can be "cast in concrete", and the fact that no fee schedule is attached to the legislation allows the minister to discuss fees with British Columbia, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia before they are imposed. Consultation can take place as to the fees which should properly be charged.
I believe that everyone on the standing committee was aware there is no fee schedule included in Bill C-2. Certainly the minister has indicated on numerous occasions that the fee schedule will not be the subject of capricious decision by either himself or his officials. Rather, it will be the result of a process of deliberation, a process of meeting with those concerned in order to make sure a fair determination is reached in setting it up.
It is not as though there is no fee system already in effect. We have fee systems on both the east and west coasts. Certain members who have spoken in this debate indicated to the House, I am sure not deliberately, that there is some new concept, that the government of Canada, under the present Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), has
80031 -14'/2

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours suddenly backed away from the system of charging fees to those who use commercial fishing facilities. This is far from the truth, Mr. Speaker. We have had a system in place on the west coast for a number of years. The problem is that fishermen dependent on the wharves and harbours they use are being discriminated against. Fishermen may pay a fee in one port but not in another. Fishermen get together and discuss what is going on in the industry. It would be no surprise if one fishermen asked: "What the devil is going on? I am being charged fees when you are not."
Surely the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt) will agree that if you use a facility, there should be some charge to the user. I think the hon. member will also agree that the fee should be determined after consultation with those who are going to use the facility. The bill does not include a fee schedule.
The hon. member can say the minister is going to bring in a fee that will be totally unreasonable for fishermen in the province of British Columbia. I suspect from the past performance of this minister that the opposite is the case. Fishermen on both the east and west coasts of Canada have come to trust this minister because what he says he usually does.
The minister recently returned from a week's visit to British Columbia. I think his consultation is an indication that he is willing to listen to the UFAWU, the trawlers, processors, native groups and others in British Columbia. That is the process that will have to go on regarding fees and the establishment of berthage charges is concerned.
As I have said, I am pleased to support this legislation. It is rational. It has been on the books for two or three years awaiting third reading. I am surprised that some opponents of the legislation have suggested that we are rushing into it. If a span of two or three years is rushing into a situation, I would hate to see what would happen if we actually passed legislation within a month. It is funny, but people in Canada say one of two things. If they are in favour of a piece of legislation, they say we should get it through and quit dragging our feet. If we rush to deal with it, we are accused of ramrodding it through.
If a piece of legislation has been before this House for two or three years, I do not accept the statement that those in the fishing industry have not had an opportunity to make their views known. I suggest that anyone interested in this legislation has had ample opportunity to come before this House and make any representations that they wish.
The hon. member who spoke before me said that invitations were not sent out. Surely it is not the role of parliament to send out invitations asking every Canadian if he wishes to appear before a standing committee. Most fishing industry representatives keep a very close watch on what is happening in the House of Commons with regard to legislation that affects their industry. I suspect the reason why there was not a great deal of representation to the committee was that, by and large, the industry was in favour of it. I do not think the fact that one or two groups have expressed the desire to halt the

legislation at this point will find total agreement across Canada, from one coast to the other.
For this reason, I am very pleased to support this legislation and congratulate the minister for having brought it before the House.


Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I want to use this occasion to bring to the attention of the minister some problems peculiar to the fishermen of Glace Bay in my constituency. I want to deal with the concept of management and control that was introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). This was referred to in another way by the last speaker, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson). The second concept I want to speak on in relation to this bill and the problem in my area is the question of consultation.
Very recently the question of a slipway and repair shed for Glace Bay harbour was finally solved. Agreement has been reached with the small craft harbours branch, which got Treasury Board to move on this federal labour intensive project and received their money from them.
When the order was put in for the material required for the slipway, they ordered treated lumber. Untreated lumber was received and it cannot be used, and the fishermen are rather worked up about this. They were kept waiting many months for the slipway; Treasury Board was very slow in giving approval. Now that Treasury Board has finally approved the FLIP money, the material to build the slipway must be sent back because it is untreated.
The fishermen are very concerned about the question of management and control. They have already brought this to the attention of the small craft harbour officials. I understood the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to say that through this bill there is the possibility of putting controls on piers, harbours and so on, under such groups as fishermen's associations, co-operatives-


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: It does not say that.


Andrew Hogan: That is a question I am asking. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni seemed to suggest that. What we in Glace Bay want is control of that skidway under the fishermen's association, something similar to what the co-op has in Cheticamp. It is true they have a marine railway.
The question asked by the hon. member for New Westminster regarding the public versus the private sector is relevant to the situation in Glace Bay. We were told by an official of the small craft harbours branch that because there is a privately owned marine railway in Sydney, the fishermen from Glace Bay must use that. I can swear to you, Mr. Minister, that one fisherman in Glace Bay paid $8,500 to use that private marine railway in Sydney.
Given the income situation of inshore fishermen on the whole of the east coast, particularly in the eastern part of Nova Scotia, this is inequitable. The only way to correct it is to allow the fishermen to manage that slipway and repair shed
February 1, 1978

once it is completed. There will have to be a fee structure for use, and agreement from those who do not belong to the fishermen's association.
On my last journey back to my constituency some two weeks ago, I met with the fishermen. They informed me that the money being used to build that slipway and repair shed would be wasted unless they could control and manage it; otherwise, it would end up in a shambles. I am inclined to agree with them. 1 would ask the minister if he would consider this and get an expression in writing to this fishermen's association through the head of the small craft and harbours branch. Of course, the rules and regulations would have to be drawn up by the fishermen's association and by members of the Department of Fisheries. There will be some things that the department with the local area management will want to straighten out, but there is no problem there. However, the direct management of that slipway and repair shed must be put in the hands of the local fishermen's association; otherwise, having listened to the fishermen and being inclined to agree with them, the department might just as well not build it at all.
This has little to do with management and moorage fees, because in my particular part of the world this question has not been brought to my attention as being a major problem. One thing that is very clear when you come into this House at first is the significant differences between west coast and east coast fishing.
I take exception to what was said by one member speaking for the Conservative side today. He expressed the opinion, as I understood him, and I hope I am not misinterpreting him, that west coast fishermen, or a lot of them, are much worse off than Atlantic Fishermen. If that is true, and we would have to look up the income figures to check it, then God help those Fishermen on the west coast because they must be in one hell of a desperate situation. The inshore Fishermen in the Atlantic region, and the minister knows about this, by and large are among the most poor of the working poor in Canada. If it were not for unemployment insurance and other things they receive they would be in even worse shape.
I say these things knowing, as those of us who are in any way connected with fisheries know, that this minister has done his best in the short period of time he has been in office to make up for the failures of this government vis-a-vis the inshore fishermen which have taken place for at least 15 years. That minister will admit, in all humility, that there is still a very, very long way to go.
Let me come back to the principle of management remaining with the Fisheries associations. This association in the Glace Bay area must be given control, otherwise the minister might as well cut out the spending now because it will be waste of money to build that slipway and repair shed. We will have to enter into a consideration of such things as rules and regulations, and I as a member of parliament will listen, as I am sure will Mr. Bagnell who is in charge of the area; but we agree that the final approval of these rules and regulations will
Fishing and Recreational Harbours have to be made by the fisheries department, whether it is through the small craft and harbours branch or somebody else designated by the minister.
As far as consultation is concerned, I know the minister recently spent a week in British Columbia consulting the people there, but that is a very large area. He also spent a considerable amount of time in the Atlantic region in those areas more heavily dependent upon the Fishing industry than is my region. As most members know, even if they go to sleep when I get to my feet, most of my riding is made up of miners, with about 25 per cent of the work force employed by the Sydney steel plant in my riding and a smaller percentage of fishermen and loggers. Although it is a small percentage, it is a very important segment.
Let us compare Cape Breton on the east coast with the metropolitan area of Halifax in respect of what has happened with the inshore fisheries. It seems obvious that the people in the department, particularly in the small craft harbours branch, were convinced that fisheries should be written off in the area as far as potential is concerned. I have talked about this matter with Devco as well, particularly regarding inshore fishing. It is one thing to let inshore fishing gradually die out in an area within a 50 or 60 miles radius from Halifax because Halifax has mushroomed in growth. There is also a special problem there now regarding ship repairing by Hawker Siddeley. But that is another concern. I suggest that anything Hawker Siddeley has touched in the maritime provinces has ultimately turned to lead anyway. That company has continually been propped up through subsidies, and so on. The government has given them substantial subsidies in Cape Breton, yet the company walked off and left us high and dry. The government then had to take up what cudgels there were left, along with the social problems and so on. I do not think it did a good job in that regard, although I appreciate the enormous effort it has recently made in respect of the coal industry. However, most of the time the government is darn reluctant to accept the notion that you have to make some kind of plans, especially in regions where there are only one or two other industries. Planning before hand is replaced by reactive planning.
Let me return to this notion of comparing the area around Sydney with that of metropolitan Halifax. Sydney is essentially the large population area of Cape Breton. I am speaking of the region close to Sydney, Glace Bay, Donkin and other such areas where the fishing industry has died or is dying. Because in addition to the seasonally unemployed in Fishing there is average unemployment of 20 per cent to 25 per cent in the other sectors. Because of the growth in the metropolitan Halifax area and what has been done there for Halifax and Dartmouth through DREE and other programs, you can disregard the people who have been involved in inshore fishing for a long period of time. However, to do that in eastern Nova Scotia would create absolute catastrophe, because all you are doing is perpetuating a bad situation, and some government or combination of governments will eventually have to spend a lot

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours of money on welfare and other schemes. The fact is there is no metropolitan growth area there.
It is terribly important to the fishermen in the area to have management and control of such things as slipways in their areas, although they have been considered as not having as much potential in the inshore fisheries as perhaps in other areas of Nova Scotia. Obviously they have pretty nearly been dependent exclusively on the fishing industry, and when they are offered such things by the government in the way of help to the fishing industry they feel such assistance should be put under their control and management, although they agree that regulations and rules must be established and approved of by the Department of Fisheries. I see Mr. Hall up in the gallery there and I am sure he will bring this to the attention of members of the small craft harbours branch.
In addition to the management and consultation questions- and I am repeating myself now and probably rambling a bit- the minister has been down into my area for the purpose of consultation. He came down at the request of the Sydney industrial board of trade. The unfortunate thing is that while the sponsors were well-intentioned, they do not know the fishermen very well. The department was also well intentioned, but the result was that the minister received only a small representation from the fishing areas.
These fishermen want the minister to come back to that area. They have a lot of questions to ask him. Inshore fishermen have a great deal of respect for this minister as compared to the minister whose place he took. This minister has taken an unequivocal stand in respect of inshore fishermen as opposed to offshore fishing which we know is also important. They want him back to explain the philosophy he expounded in Yarmouth. They want him to explain how this philosophy is to be turned into policy in respect of inshore fishing. They are convinced now that the minister is for them, but they also know there is a strong group in the Nova Scotia government area that wants to place most of the emphasis and spend most of the money on offshore fisheries, with very little emphasis being placed on the inshore fisheries.
Mr. Alphonse Bergeron, who is the son of a fisherman in my area, lives at 3 Park Street, Sydney, Nova Scotia. He reminded me that the "Fishing News International" of October 1977 reported that according to Dr. Dan Reid, who is the minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia, his department wanted $135 million to be spent on nine freezer trawlers; $600 million to be spent on 125 new trawlers; and $140 million to be spent to replace old scallop draggers. In other words, $875 million would be spent in Nova Scotia alone. There was no mention of inshore fishermen in that article at all. Although Dr. Reid is a very likeable man, he is being dictated to because of the power of the Nickerson interests in the economy of Nova Scotia and its government, which power results from the recent purchase of the controlling shares of National Sea Products and even though many of us feel this will end up in a monopolization of the industry.

Continually I have requested of the past minister of consumer and corporate affairs, as well as of the present Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Allmand), that Mr. Nickerson and Mr. Morrow appear before a committee dealing with the anti-combines legislation. Because of the philosophy which has been expressed already by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), I am sure he will make sure this monopoly will not take place. There are many questions which need to be asked in that regard. The fishermen have many questions they want answered, some of which will concern lobster licensing and how the general policy will be protective of inshore Fishermen. I am sure it is possible for the minister to meet with 100 to 150 fishermen in the eastern Nova Scotia area whom we could attract in order to discuss these and other problems which they face. I appeal to Mr. Hall, who is in the gallery, and I hope the minister will take note of what I am saying.
In conclusion, let me repeat that the Glace Bay development and the approved projects which will be built there will be of no use unless the fishermen's association has management and control of that slipway and that shed.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make with respect to the bill before the House. I welcome the opportunity it affords those of us who come from provinces and constituencies where the fishing industry is an important factor. It provides us with an opportunity to have some input into the fisheries policy in an attempt to improve legislation. Of course, that is the raison d'etre behind this kind of parliamentary debate.
Notwithstanding the fact that this bill has been around for some considerable time, I must say I read the minister's speech which he presented in the House last night very carefully and could find nothing in it to reassure me there would be no additional financial burden imposed upon Canadian fishermen at this time. As reported at page 2414 of Hansard, the minister said the following:
However, let me assure the House that no decision has been made in respect of the details of a new fee structure. Fishermen are not going to wake up with the passage of this legislation to find they have to pay the federal government "X" number of dollars.
As the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) said so eloquently, we may wake up to find that the hon. member opposite is no longer with us and has gone on to what he considers to be greener pastures. Consequently, that assurance is no longer valid. As long as the minister is in his post, he can be held to his word. With the transpiration of events, there is every indication he will accept the siren call from New Brunswick and leave us for the Liberal leadership of that province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish him godspeed and every happiness. I cannot wish him success because I know he cannot achieve that, even if I wish it. I believe the minister is leaving, which makes it incumbent upon us to do what we can to get him to change his mind on this bill. That is why the hon. member for
February 1, 1978

South Shore indicated that our party cannot support this bill at this time.
The bill provides us with an excellent opportunity to speak on fisheries and fishery policy generally. I regret very much the minister did not seize this opportunity in his speech last night, because a lot of fish have been caught and a lot of water has flowed in the northwest Atlantic and Pacific since the introduction of this bill. Many important changes are taking place in this industry, the oldest of Canada's industries. They are welcome changes brought about as a result of the unilateral declaration and imposition of the 200-mile economic zone, which was preceded by various bilateral agreements with a number of countries that have enjoyed ancient, traditional fishing rights in some of the areas now covered by that zone.
It has been indicated that it will take anywhere from five years to ten years to build up the stocks in order to repair the damage which was done as a result of the uncontrolled foreign exploitation that took place in our fishing grounds. It will be necessary to take advantage of that period of time in order to put in place policies which will have long term effects and which will provide Canadians with a certain degree of confidence that has heretofore been missing in this industry. It should be the kind of confidence men and women can build their futures upon and be reasonably assured of a good living. The Atlantic Canada fishing industry has a potential of providing our people with a good way of living and with a good income. Certainly this holds true in the case of Newfoundland, which is currently experiencing economic difficulties that are prevalent across the country. When there is an economic crisis in Canada, it becomes all that much more severe in Atlantic Canada which already faces the highest unemployment rate in our country.
A number of our people who no longer have any confidence in fly-by-night industrial ventures-and rightly so when you look at the record of some of these ventures-are now beginning to look to the fishing industry because they believe that there is a future in the fishery. They know that with our management of the stock we can now control the industry to the point where we can maximize the exploitation of it for the benefit of our own people, which has not been the case heretofore.
In the past, it is true to say, the fishing industry has been a Cinderella of the Canadian government. We have had a number of ministers who preceded the hon. gentleman who now has the responsibility of the fisheries portfolio, earnest, sincere, dedicated people, whose influence on their colleagues in cabinet, unfortunately for the fishing industry, has been minimal. Consequently, matters relating to the fisheries were always given a very low priority. But now I hope that is changing, and I suspect a symptom of that change in attitude by the House is the attention that has been paid to this bill.
In normal times a bill of this nature brought before the House would only receive perfunctory attention. It would be passed through all phases of the parliamentary process quite
Fishing and Recreational Harbours quickly. But not so today because we all sense there is something happening. In fact, we know there is something happening. We know there are big things in store, and therefore this debate provides us with the first opportunity we have to discuss matters relating to the fishery.
As far as the industry in Newfoundland is concerned, I have stated-and I firmly believe, and the government of Newfoundland believes-that the fishing industry has the potential to provide our people with a good livelihood, to provide excellent job and business opportunities for our people, if we go about it the right way. But regrettably, all is not as it should be. What I call a jurisdictional debate has developed between the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) and his counterpart in the government of Newfoundland, to the detriment of the industry. I want to be as objective as I can. The gentleman who holds the responsibility for the fisheries portfolio in Newfoundland is a former member of the House and I believe-and I feel in all fairness that the minister opposite will agree with me-that he is certainly one of the best fisheries ministers that Newfoundland has ever had, if not the best. He has brought to the portfolio a dedication and a concern that has all too often been missing in the past.
Out of that concern and dedication, in consultation with his counterpart in the province of Nova Scotia-because essentially when we speak of the groundfish industry in the Atlantic provinces we are primarily talking about Newfoundland and Nova Scotia-he has put together a fisheries development program. The minister complained that he has not even seen the program, that the program had never been presented to him. I find that hard to believe because I suspect, indeed 1 know, that the minister's officials had a great deal of input in the preparation of that program. Civil servants in the provincial and federal jurisdictions in this field of activity have worked and continue to work very closely together, and rightly so. The minister knew what was in the program, but he seemed to want to go his own separate way.
What we on this side of the House would like to see implemented is the philosophy expounded by the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson), who issued a major statement on fisheries on January 26 in the form of a press release and an excellent paper, with most of which I find myself in total agreement. He said:
It is important, even essential, that fishermen, the fish trade, governments and Newfoundlanders generally, work together co-operatively to make the most of this new chance because, the odds are, that if we fail this time, that chance won't come again.
I say Amen to that statement. I believe that the situation is improving. 1 believe that there is emerging from the dispute to which I have referred a new climate of co-operation. I give a lot of the credit for this to the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who represents one of the important fishing constituencies in this country. He initiated, with the support of his colleague the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc), a symposium on the fisheries at Marystown, and from that I think has emerged a new spirit of co-operation.

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
I believe there will now be very close co-operation by the two levels of government, certainly in so far as the fisheries development is concerned in the province of Newfoundland, because there are problems that have to be tackled. One of them is the whole question of the utilization of the resource. At present it is underutilized. Both our present plant capacity and our trawler capacity are underutilized, and that is a situation which we must turn around.
Then there is the question-I am sure this is a question which is very dear to the minister's heart, and I do not say that sarcastically because I know it is and I applaud him for it-of inshore fisheries. Up to the extension of our jurisdiction, the inshore fishery had a very limited future because the fish were not coming in. They were not coming in because they were being caught by foreigners. It is as simple as that. Now we have a chance to control that situation, and an opportunity to develop a viable inshore industry so that a man can engage in the fishing industry with very little investment in terms of facilities, and so on, if he utilizes smaller boats and if he has some kind of assurance that there will be proper holding facilities for his catch until the plants are able to absorb it. In that lies the greatest opportunity for expansion, and not only for expansion but for the preservation of what the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo and the president of the Newfoundland Fish Food and Allied Workers' Union has called Newfoundland's social structure. It is an opportunity for the preservation of a way of life that has existed in our province for over 400 years, the very reason for the existence of Newfoundland in the first place.
I hope that we can provide these fishermen with incentives and not put road blocks in their way. I consider this bill to be a potential road block. It is another part of the user-pay concept of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang). We are liable to wake up tomorrow and find the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has become the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition in the province of New Brunswick, and lo and behold there it is!


Roméo LeBlanc: Don't hold your breath!


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe we should be, at this critical stage in our fisheries development, providing incentives to our people to involve themselves in the inshore fishery. Here I want to refer-and I regret very much having to bring this partisan note in here-to the minister's pork barrel philosophy in approaching the whole business of allocation of funds to small craft harbours. I can cite my constituency as living proof that this pork barrel approach to the allocation of funds for wharves, breakwaters and marine facilities still exists and in fact is thriving under the administration of the present minister. Notwithstanding its urban nature, my constituency, as the minister knows, is a very important fish producing constituency. There are a number of small harbours adjacent to the city of St. John's which are the headquarters for a number of inshore and mid-shore fishermen. Yet try as we may, we are unable to get the government to give any priority to repairs and construction of new facilities in the constituency of St.
[Mr. McGrath.)
John's East. I suspect the same probably holds true in the riding of St. John's West.
Just let me give an example by way of illustration. Between Christmas and New Year's we had an unusual storm. Even the oldtimers could not remember anything to come close to it in terms of ferocity and severity. We suspect there was some kind of subterranean upheaval. It almost caused a tidal wave. It was devastating and did a tremendous amount of damage in the southeast part of Newfoundland.
I met with fishermen from several important fishing communities in my constituency where damage had been extensive, and together with the fishermen's union, the mayor, provincial officials and officials from the minister's department we came to the conclusion that there was a serious problem. In order to ensure that it would be addressed expeditiously and urgently we sent a telex to the minister outlining the extent of the damage, requesting immediate attention to it and calling upon the minister to get on with the business of providing additional facilities. In this case we wanted breakwaters to ensure that this kind of storm damage would never recur; in other words, to ensure that we would not be spending good money after bad.
I must say that the minister's response was sympathetic. I talked to his officials, and I received a letter from the minister concerning the villages of Torbay and Flat Rock. It is here that we get into the pork barrel philosophy of the minister. As a courtesy to me as a member of parliament surely the minister could have given me the opportunity of telling these people that the damage would be repaired and that the Department of Public Works had been instructed to investigate the possibility of putting in breakwaters. But no, letters arrived three days after the minister's announcement appeared in the St. John's press. That is a discourtesy.
We have come to expect that because the minister exemplifies and epitomizes the pork barrel approach, and I say that is regrettable. The industry is too important and too critical for us to resurrect that ancient and outmoded approach to the building of marine works and the repairing of existing facilities. The fishermen in my constituency have just as much right to expect favourable consideration as the fishermen in a constituency represented by a Liberal, and that has not always been the case.
Let us examine the votes for small craft harbours. In 1973-74 the total was $2.9 million for the province of Newfoundland. Last night the minister referred to the 2,000 harbours and wharves which are under his jurisdiction, many of them in dire need of repair when he took them over in 1973. Most of these harbours, wharves and breakwaters are in the province of Newfoundland because of the extent of our coastline, and yet in 1973-74 the total vote was $2.9 million for Newfoundland.
The figure improved in 1974-75. It went up to $6.8 million. In 1975-76 the figure went down to $4.3 million. When we were going through a period of austerity in government spend-
February 1, 1978

ing, as pointed out by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), small craft harbours were the first to come under the knife. That is a matter of considerable regret because the small craft harbours division of the department had been underfunded for a considerable time anyway.
There was some improvement in 1976-77. The figure jumped up to $11.5 million. A very substantial portion of that, almost three quarters of it, was funds provided under the Canada Works program. That may seem logical and sensible on the surface, but in my view it represents something totally reprehensible. The minister used the Canada Works program as a means of getting cheap labour because he knew that under the program you are allowed to pay only the prevailing provincial minimum wage plus $15 which, in the case of Newfoundland, amounted to $115 per week.
An example of the problems that caused could be found at one harbour in my constituency in the town of Holyrood where there was substantial development going on, largely funded by Canada Works and with a great deal of input by the provincial government. The minister decided, and rightly so, that here was a suitable client to receive money under the marina policy of the department. It was decided that under the marina policy this project would be supported. The project was the building of a basin for a very impressive yacht club, the only one in that part of the province. It was decided to support the financing of the construction of a breakwater. So the breakwater was constructed under the marina policy. There was a contract for the hiring of workers at $6 an hour, while their neighbours employed by Canada Works who were doing the same job were getting $2.50 an hour. How totally unfair! These people could not understand what was going on, and I had to explain to them that under the regulations imposed under this program the government could pay them only the minimum wage, plus $15.
This other project came under another policy, and the contractor had to pay prevailing rates. Quite naturally, those people did not know what I was talking about, and I do not blame them, because it did not make any sense. I know of wharves throughout my constituency and throughout Newfoundland which are utilizing the cheap labour concept of Canada Works to do badly needed and long overdue repairs. That is a totally reprehensible approach to what is essentially an urgent problem. It is also the wrong way to utilize the Canada Works program, which was never intended to be utilized in that way.
I had to go along with it, and I have gone along with it. We all have because we have had no choice. If there is a wharf in a constituency which is badly in need of repairs and which the department has refused to repair because of budgetary considerations, I have to suggest an application for a grant under the Canada Works program be made, and the small craft harbours division of the Department of Fisheries supports the project and provides materials. On the surface that seems like a good idea. Canada Works supplies $100,000 for labour at $2.50 an hour where normally the labour would cost twice that amount. The Department of Fisheries supplies the materials,
Fishing and Recreational Harbours which might amount to another $20,000 or $30,000. Naturally, advantage has to be taken of this. There is no choice. It is Hobson's choice. However, I submit that this is misusing the intent of the Canada Works program, and it represents what I consider to be the frustration of the minister's officials in recognizing the need which is there but in not having the wherewithal to do anything about it. The minister does not seem to have the necessary clout with Treasury Board to get the funds to put these projects in place.
There is also the policy, which I hope will be changed, of the "chicken and egg" concept. The department will turn down a request for extension of a wharf because, on the basis of their survey, not enough fish are being landed or there is no commercial fishing activity that would justify the expenditure. How can there be when the facility is not there in the first place? Which comes first-increased fish landings or improved facilities to accommodate such landings? I hope the "chicken and egg" concept will change within the scope of the new opportunities we now have. We have a unique and golden opportunity to develop this industry as a viable and renewable one which will provide permanent jobs for as far ahead as man can see. The demand for protein will continue and will grow as the population of the world increases.
The change of attitude has to start with the minister. I know that is difficult for him, representing as he does the town of Shediac. We know the hanky-panky that went on between Shediac and Moncton. It will be difficult for the minister to change but change he must. Knowing the rules of the game as I do and having been around politics for so long, if the minister were to tell me he will spend $100,000 in my constituency, I would not make a big deal of it. People know there is a Liberal government in Ottawa, so if the minister extended that courtesy to me I would notify, as is my responsibility as their representative, the chairman of the fishermen's committee, the local of the fishermen's union, the mayor of the community concerned and the provincial member. Apparently that courtesy is not to be extended, however.
This industry is very important in Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker. I have been to Iceland and I saw how they were able to develop their industry. I can appreciate the parallel between that country and Newfoundland. The fishing industry provides them with a standard of living higher than ours-probably fourth or fifth in the world and with practically zero unemployment.
That brings me to my next comment, Mr. Speaker, the question of changes necessary to the Fisheries Act because of the 200-mile limit. The time is long past for the minister to give serious consideration to changing the Fisheries Act in order to allow foreign trawlers and draggers the right to change their crews and to have minor repairs done in Canada. The reason for the prohibition is no longer relevant. The prohibition made a great deal of sense prior to the 200-mile limit because then we had to do whatever we could to discourage foreigners from raping those resources.

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
Now we have a degree of control within 200 miles. This is another advantage which we can maximize by allowing foreigners to change crews and have minor repairs done here. This would mean a great deal to the ports of St. John's, Sydney, Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick. It would mean millions of dollars in new business and new jobs. It would mean utilizing the port of St. John's which is uniquely suited to be the service station of the North Atlantic.
The government must be sympathetic and provide proper haulout facilities. By that I mean providing a synchro-lift for the port of St. John's. We have a drydock there that is capable of expansion if we had a synchro-lift that would enable us to haul ships out of the water in order to repair their bottoms. The minister is nodding his head, Mr. Speaker. I know from what he said in the House today that active consideration is being given to this proposition. It is something that is long overdue.
Now I come to the area of foreign involvement and the question of joint ventures, Mr. Speaker. There is also the question of foreign draggers being licensed to land fish in Canada and the potential of transshipment in bond for foreigners. This has great possibilities for us. The question was taboo a short time ago but the situation has changed. There are now possibilities of working out some means of transshipment, whilst retaining control, which would provide jobs. At the moment we control the resource to a large extent. In the area outside the 200-mile limit we can exercise control through the ICNAF treaty if we go about it the right way and use the tremendous bargaining power we have as a lever. This matter was touched on by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). We could reach agreement, I am sure, for some degree of control beyond the 200-mile limit.
Of course, the 200-mile limit is just as artificial as the 12-mile limit or the three-mile limit. Had the anchovies of Peru swum for 400 miles then we would probably have a 400-mile limit. It was only because the precedent had been set by Peru to control the anchovy stock by extending their jurisdiction to 200 miles that we were able to get approval, notwithstanding the failure of the Law of the Sea Conference. We might get agreement to control beyond the 200-mile limit if we use the position of strength that we have as a bargaining lever.
We should be looking at the potential which exists not only for our ports but for our underutilized plant capacity in the Atlantic provinces, especially Newfoundland. That does not mean that we have to sell out to foreign companies. I share the minister's concern about the proposed takeover of the Ocean Harvester's plant by the subsidiary of Unilever, Nordzee. Here I Find myself on the horns of a dilemma. I see immediate jobs on the one hand and a loss of potential on the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. Anderson) is rising on a point of order or to ask a question.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the remarks of the hon. member regarding the Law of the Sea Conference, the 200-mile limit and various other matters but I question whether he is dealing with the bill before us, Bill C-2.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for treating that spurious point of order with the silent contempt it deserved. I was saying that we are facing a dilemma in Newfoundland over the potential foreign takeover which is now quite properly the subject of review by the Foreign Investment Review Agency. On the one hand we see the immediate possibility of jobs for a depressed area where jobs are crucial, and on the other we see an opportunity for a company that had been there before, had pulled up stakes and left us high and dry, to come back and use a trawler capacity-which they are now unable to use-because of our extended jurisdiction. I think that sums up the position this company is in, as well as other west European companies. So we can get deals without selling out. But I say this to the minister, and through him to FIRA, that if in their determination this takeover is not to be permitted, they have to satisfy themselves that there is somebody else who is there who is going to move in and utilize this plant, because that plant's capacity is 50 per cent underutilized at the present time.
Northern stocks are crucial to the future of the inshore Fishery on the northeast and southeast coast of Newfoundland. We have already bartered away unilaterally-and I say unilaterally without reference to the government of Newfoundland-hundreds of thousands of pounds of fish through bilateral agreements. I look at the figures for 1977-178,000 metric tons of codfish with a landed value of $59 million or an export value of $118,320,000. That represents jobs that may have been lost to us by allowing foreigners to fish for these quotas. Before we make any more deals with anybody there should be first of all consultation with the province that is to be directly affected. These are our resources and they are just as important to us in Newfoundland as the oil reserves of the tar sands in Alberta are to the Albertans. It is just as much our resource. It has a tremendous impact on our economic future.
I do not think the minister, notwithstanding the constitution or any right he may feel he has constitutionally in this respect, has the right, given the concept of co-operative federalism, to barter away our future in this way without reference to us. I could go down the list of all the other species; redfish or ocean perch, 55,000 metric tons bartered away in 1977 representing $9 million or an export value of $20 million. And so it goes.
The minister laughs. The minister knows what is happening. What has been happening is that I suspect that these quotas have been used as barter in making deals with other countries for other commodities.


Some hon. Members:: Totally irresponsible.


James Aloysius McGrath: I believe it is happening, and in fact I know it is happening. It is happening in the case of wheat. They are

February 1, 1978

bartering away our quotas for other commodity deals without reference to the province of Newfoundland or the province of Nova Scotia. I would say that is totally irresponsible. Is it any wonder that the minister has problems getting along with his counterparts in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not very knowledgeable about the rules of the House. The hon. member has given a rambling speech full of damaging statistics in terms of the truth. Unless he is willing to put them into context, I will have to challenge him to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The minister knows that he has already contributed to the debate in moving his motion and he has no right of reply. There is no way, within the debate, that he can participate himself unless he receives consent to make an intervention.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to provide the minister with the statistical information 1 have put on the record. It was supplied to me by the Newfoundland government and I believe it to be accurate.


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure you at the outset and all hon. members of the House that I will speak for as little time as I can in completing my remarks. I will not be nearly as lengthy or verbose as the previous speaker and I will try to deal with the subject matter.
I am dismayed and surprised that the debate on this bill is still carrying on at this stage in this House. This bill has been before us in one form or another for some two years now. We have all had adequate knowledge of it, we have all had a chance to debate it, and we have all had a chance to make recommendations and improve it. And now, two years later, the Conservative and the New Democratic opposition are blocking and delaying a bill which is thoroughly needed and for which the minister ought to be commended.
I am amazed that there is not a charge being led from the middle of the Conservative opposition congratulating the minister and supporting his bill. During most of this debate I do not seem to recall having seen those good Conservative members from the province of Ontario, who knew and know right now how important the need is in this country to build more harbours and recreational facilities for small boating in Canada. It is strange too that those members from Ontario in the New Democratic Party are not here leading a motion in support of this debate.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Why?
Fishing and Recreational Harbours


Roger Carl Young: I will answer the hon. member. His own leader, the representative from Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), should be here supporting the minister because over the next 13 years in the area of Oshawa and Toronto there will be a need not to quadruple but to quintuple the number of berths for small boats in the Toronto area. The member for Oshawa-Whitby should be here commending the minister and getting on with the bill.
It is about time, Mr. Speaker, that some of those members who think they know what they are doing learn of the needs of sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and recreational boaters from the province of Ontario. I know that the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is here and if he really believes in his cause-and I know he agrees with me because we sat in committee together-he is going to get up and lead that charge from the Conservative ranks, support the minister and say: "Let us get on with this bill and get the job done."
I hope that the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) and some of the other members of the NDP might come into this House, because people are waiting to build marinas in Sault Ste. Marie and in northern Ontario. But where are they? They should be here supporting the bill.
We have had enough delay of this bill; we have been debating it for two years. This is a bill to promote federal-provincial planning and development of harbour facilities on a shared cost basis, to stimulate construction and local operation of water access facilities through shared cost programs, and to support marina developments by the private sector. These members of the opposition are blocking and delaying just the kind of program that we need to cure some of the harbour deficiencies in the province of Ontario and throughout Canada.
I confess to having been a thorn in the minister's side for the last couple of years. I have bugged him and I have cajoled him and I have said: "Let us go and spend more money". I am not totally happy with the amount that is being spent, but I am not going to block the best bill that he has brought forward to get the job done. Neither should the opposition members be doing that. That is shameful.
We have here a bill, Mr. Speaker, to establish and improve the administrative system for the management of our harbours and facilities, to appoint harbour managers, and to make it possible to better administer, organize and run our harbours, to create better safety provisions, and to help commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and the recreational boater-the little fellow whom the NDP say they normally support, the little fellow who just goes boating on the weekend.


An hon. Member:: You are worrying about them?


Roger Carl Young: Yes, I am worrying about them.


An hon. Member:: The bill shows it.


Roger Carl Young: Let me answer the hon. member right now. I do not want to be nasty but I am going to suggest that his tongue

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours is kind of flapping like a hatch in a line squall right now. If he wants me to tell him a little bit about boating and some of the needs of recreational boaters in the province of Ontario, I can well do so. I would just like to point out to the hon. member, if he will hold that flapping tongue for a moment, that I have written articles concerning boating in national publications in this country. I have been published across the country.
If the hon. member would like me to teach him a little about boating, I would be glad to do so-and I know he comes from British Columbia. I would be glad to explain to him that we are going to need at least 20,000 berths in the Ontario area for recreational purposes in the next few years alone. I would be glad to explain to him that we have a $450 million sports fishing industry in Ontario and that people cannot get out to fish and use their boats, commercial or pleasure, because we do not have enough ramps and marinas.
An hon. member who spoke just a while ago said there had been pork-barrelling. Well, I have not seen any of it. I have been after the minister for three years to get a marina built in my riding so that "little people" like myself would not have to walk 200 or 300 feet into the lake to reach a boat tied up to a rock or to a mooring. People have to walk into the lake now and they do so from the moment the ice breaks up in the springtime to the day it forms in late fall.
While we are not entirely happy with what has been done, we commend the minister for at least starting on the job and increasing his budget by six or seven times in the last five years. All of us are waiting to get with this job. There are people in this province who want docks and wharves. Members of the Conservative party, members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal party as well are waiting for docks and marinas to go in. Let us get on with the job. There should not be any more delay; there has already been too much. I see the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) is about to put the needle to some of his colleagues and say: "Quit messing around, let us do some of the things that are needed; let us support the minister, let us not block his way when he seeks to improve the bill; if we can do part of the work this year, that is great; next year let us do more."
I wax somewhat eloquent when I get into this subject; it is one I have been close to for a number of years. I have tried to work very hard to further the education of some of my fellow members so that they could understand the plight of the small craft boating people and industry in this country. Hon. members talk about inequities in the small boating industry. If there is anyone who can claim to be the victim of inequity he would be the Minister of State (Small Business), (Mr. Abbott). Hon. members talk about fees. A full 40 per cent of all wharfage charges in this country come from people in the riding of the Minister of State (Small Business), subsidizing a lot of boating in the rest of the country. We in Ontario are not crying the blues. We are willing to pay our way. As a matter of fact we are doing a great deal to subsidize some of the work being done in other parts of the country. But our economy in

Ontario is based on recreation and the provision of manufactured goods.


Mr. Johnston:: And heavy industry.


Roger Carl Young: And heavy industry, yes. We depend on people who create jobs through the building of small boats that some of you people on the coast sail on the ocean waters.


Howard Earl Johnston: You haven't got a monopoly.


Roger Carl Young: We build some of the best boats in this country right in my riding as well as right next to it. We have gained worldwide recognition for building some of the finest sailing boats.


Howard Earl Johnston: Do you think we don't?


Roger Carl Young: Yes, you do. I am not disputing that. You were challenging me.
Part of the economy of Ontario which goes to support those who are less fortunate in this country comes from recreational boating and the sports fishing industry. We have to do something to keep that industry growing and improving. We need a bill such as the one before us. We need the development of recreational, small boat harbours in this country. We should stop stonewalling and putting roadblocks in the way of the minister. Let us get on with the debate. Let us get it over with and let us get on with this part of the job. If there is more to do, we can come back and do the rest of it later.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the concerns advanced by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) who waxed eloquently for a few minutes. It was obvious to me that we were hearing an expression of serious concern from Ontario but very little concern for the east coast. In fact, I failed to hear any reference to the east coast or to the west coast. That same concern was voiced in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry when the bill was before it; we heard a ten-minute eulogy and then a five-minute speech regarding the need for marinas in Niagara Falls. Yet, in terms of taxable dollars, the hon. member for Niagara Falls knows full well that his constituency gets more than its fair share.
To use the excuse that this bill has been before the House for debate for two years is spurious, and the hon. member should know better than to say so. It has not been before the House for two years. Last night the government thought that once again it might just be able to catch the opposition off guard so it tried to sneak it in. They did so. But the government has never yet caught the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) off guard, and they have never yet caught the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) off guard. Nor will they.


Roger Carl Young: Bunkum!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Niagara Falls has anything to add which makes any sense, I am prepared to let him stand and speak again; otherwise it would
February 1, 1978

be helpful if he would keep his mouth shut. I did not interject while he was attempting to make his point, even though he failed to succeed. I say again, if the hon. member wishes to interject-


Roger Carl Young: The opportunity has been offered. I did refer to both coasts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is not for the hon. member for Kootenay West to decide who is to have the floor. The hon. member can speak in due time. If the hon. member for Kootenay West yields to someone else, he also loses his turn.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I certainly would not want to lose my opportunity to speak.
It should also be drawn to the attention of the hon. member for Niagara Falls, that in his desire to increase the marina facilities in Niagara Falls-it is a genuine concern and he is truly representing the concern of his riding in that context-he failed to mention that under the scheme of things he proposed, which certainly involves no small expenditure, there has to be some involvement in spending by the provincial government and the municipal authorities as well. Surely, the taxpayers of Canada should not be obliged to carry the can for the marinas which the hon. member for Niagara Falls wants in his riding without some cost-sharing-cost-sharing by the boat owners themselves.


Roger Carl Young: That is exactly what the legislation does.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I am thoroughly familiar with the legislation. I have sat on the committee with the hon. member for Niagara Falls and I have studied the bill from cover to cover. He clearly fails to understand that, in his representations to the minister a few moments ago, he totally neglected, in his desire to extend the marina facilities in his constituency, to indicate that there should be provincial and municipal involvement.
Let us get to the other inequities. If members opposite feel there are inequities, how do members on the opposition side feel about it? The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Young) talked of obstructionism and delay. This bill was introduced last night. Is it obstructionism that we would seek to debate the bill for one or two days? If in the view of that member bills should be brought in and passed without debate, we have lost the true intent of parliament.
I recall other inequities with regard to the boating industry that were brought in by this government. I recall the spurious argument being introduced that, as an energy saving device, the government was going to tax certain boat motors over and above a certain size, beginning at a certain date, provided those motors were purchased from that date forward. There was no mention of the motors that were popping around the bays prior to that date. Those motors were exempt. There must have been some special designation that implied they did not consume the gasoline that the more recent motors consumed.
Fishing and Recreational Harbours What a ridiculous type of excuse that this government made on the basis of a very shallow argument.
Again to satisfy the hon. member for Niagara Falls, I am sure there are members here who agree that there is much within the content of Bill C-2 that is favourable. It is unusual to hear members on both sides of the House make statements which are clearly in favour of the minister. That rarely happens. It is a reflection of the manner in which the minister has handled his post that members from both sides of the House recognize his energies. That is not to say that improvements cannot be made. It is not to say that the minister, engrained in the Liberal tradition of confrontation with the provinces and the Liberal tradition of pork barrelling, is not a victim of those failures.
I recall after first being elected being in the small community of Procter, where there was a federal government wharf that was in a disastrous state of repair. One of the first things drawn to my attention after the election was the fact that two ladies who walked out on to this wharf in Kootenay Lake stepped on a plank and nearly ended up in the water underneath the wharf because the plank was rotten.
I was asked what I was going to do about this, and I wrote a letter to the Department of Transport. After a very substantial delay I received a response to the effect that the matter belonged more appropriately with the Department of Public Works, so I wrote a letter to the minister. Because the delay was so long, I had the opportunity to slip into a standing committee meeting involving that particular minister. I described the circumstances and asked what he was going to do about the Procter wharf.
Some weeks later I received a letter indicating that this was more appropriately the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I then wrote back to the Department of Transport, pointing out the difference of opinion and suggesting they were playing games with me and my constituents. I finally discovered the responsibility for the wharf had been taken over by small craft harbours branch of the Department of the Environment. That was in 1974.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: And 1975.


Robert Hylton Brisco: In 1974, 1975, 1976, ad nauseam. Two days ago, Canada Works and small craft harbours got together and began construction of a new wharf.
In the interim the people of Procter were trying to use this facility. One afternoon, when the people were at work, along came a tugboat, the wharf was sawed in half with a power saw and half of it towed up Kootenay Lake. Who knows the cost of that? It was used as a breakwater at Johnsons Landing. The next day when the people went down to the wharf, half of it was missing, small craft harbours people did not know about it. Public Works did, but they are no longer involved. How ridiculous!


An hon. Member:: Who owned the chain saw?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I think it was a government subsidy.

February 1, 1978
Fishing and Recreational Harbours
1 hope this bill will provide some cohesive policy in terms of the maintenance of facilities. Looking at the wharf and ramp facilities put in by the federal government in my constituency, it seems to have been the policy to allow these facilities to deteriorate to the point where they must be declared abandoned structures, dangerous to the public and marked "Please keep off'. It would be less costly to the taxpayer to provide proper maintenance. They are all in fresh water. They are not subject to the dry rot and other erosions that occur in salt water, yet they have been allowed to deteriorate and degenerate.
There are no launching facilities on magnificent Kootenay Lake from the city of Nelson right through to the top end of the lake. Kaslo, which has its own little harbour and marina, has a private facility. The people of Kaslo and Kootenay West have been urging that the wharf be upgraded so that they can use it. The answer is: (a) the wharf has deteriorated to the stage where it is dangerous for public use; (b) too costly to repair; (c) too costly to replace; and (d) to remove the structure and put in place an earth filled structure is too costly.
We are faced with a struggle with the British Columbia government for a release of other land in that harbour to try and put in a facility for boat launching for public use on the west side of Kootenay Lake from Nelson to the head end of the lake.
Robson has the same problem. Fortunately there is a good wharf there which has been improved and is being maintained in a state of repair by the Department of the Environment. Unfortunately, there is a breakdown in communications and a failure of the two governments to get their act together. The wharf provides access to Arrow Lake below the Keenleyside dam, that structure put in under the Columbia River treaty. It is not cleared of snow in the winter. It would take a department of highways truck about ten minutes to clear that wharf. Flowever, they do not do that. As a result, no one can use it.
The same situation applies in the town of Nakusp, where the wharf has been allowed to deteriorate. When it gets into a shabby state because of the terrific rise and fall of Arrow Lake, due to the Columbia River and B.C. Hydro, the village is expected to handle the movement of that wharf facility when the water is low, to allow the dockage points to be moved out, and to have them brought in when the water is high. Finally, it looks as though B.C. Hydro is back in the act. Quite possibly with the efforts of the community of Nakusp and surrounding communities B.C. Hydro will now move and put in appropriate wharf facilities. Whether or not small craft harbours or Canada Works will join them remains to be seen. There is, however, an application that will shortly go before the minister, and that application is from the city of Nelson.
As I have already remarked, there are no boat launching facilities on Kootenay Lake for public use from Nelson to the north end of the lake, a distance of some 75 or 80 miles. There are two or three private marinas that are well maintained, but the city of Nelson has a very old marina, very old, indeed. In

its efforts to improve its foreshore Nelson now proposes to develop a marina on the foreshore site at the city of Nelson. That project will probably cost in the area of $230,000. Already the city has either approached or very shortly will approach the provincial authorities for assistance. On its behalf it would be my intention to approach small craft harbours and Canada Works. Hopefully we can see that project go ahead for the betterment of a community which exists on a lake but has no adequate or proper wharf facilities.
It should also be mentioned in the context of British Columbia, and certainly in the context of Kootenay West, that the co-operation I have received from officials of small craft harbours based in Vancouver has been very good. I should like to say I enjoy the sense of rapport which seems to have developed between myself and Mr. Warren Parkinson. His co-operation has on more than one occasion been of some benefit to the people of Kootenay West.
At the present time the provision of wharf, ramp or marina facilities is important to the boating public on that major body of water, Kootenay Lake. This is also important on the Arrow lakes, but there is less traffic there. Kootenay Lake enjoys a great deal of traffic both Canadian and American.
I might point out that recently the RCMP moved in in respect of these American boats tied up at certain marinas in my riding. These boats apparently had come through customs without proper declaration as to why they were remaining in Canada. They have been subsequently seized.
It might have been of some benefit to Canada-U.S. relations if these people had been formally informed or notified prior to seizure, giving them the opportunity of either declaring they had major repairs to be done on their boats or getting the boats out of the country. These people are now faced with a Canadian assessment and double taxation before they can take their boats back to the United States. This will amount to a great deal of money, and I suggest it makes about as much sense as the $8-tax this government recently put on American citizens flying into Canada or travelling on flights originating in Canada. That has to be the chippiest piece of legislation I have seen for a long time, but par for the course for this government.
I have remarked about the boating facilities on Kootenay Lake. I would like to be able to favourably remark on the fishing facilities as well. Unfortunately we are faced with another section of the Columbia River treaty; that final portion called the Kootenay River diversion. There is some question as to what impact that diversion will have on the Kootenay Lake fishery.
The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) has provided experts in their fields, such as limnolo-gists, to go into the Kootenay Lake area and carry out a careful study and analysis of the water quality of that lake. I wrote to the minister and asked him to provide me with a preliminary report on the water quality studies done by officials of his department-these experts whose qualifications I do not question. The Kootenay River diversion project is boiling and coming to a head. Public concern is really very
February 1, 1978

serious. What did the minister say to me in his reply? One of the most entertaining statements by the minister, which reflects Liberal thinking, was that he was not in a position to provide me with these figures, statistics and information at this time but would be pleased to do so in 1979.
The minister questions whether it was him who said that. Indeed, it was. The minister presupposes that he is going to be the minister of this department in 1979, and he also presupposes, which is even worse, that he will even be a minister in 1979. I suggest that is very much open to question and doubt.
This demonstrates the point that has been expressed by members of the opposition, that while the minister may be very sincere in what he says about the regulations and his dealings with the fishermen on the east and west coasts regarding the sort of fees that will be levied by the wharfingers, what guarantee do we have that the minister will be in place when those fees are established?
The minister is already in difficulty in respect of another piece of legislation. He declared that we had nothing to fear because he was in control. I refer to Bill C-38 which is far from settled. The minister knows that the province of British Columbia has not yet approved Bill C-38 or accepted its
Fishing and Recreational Harbours context. The minister knows that officials from various hydro projects across Canada where fisheries are involved have been to Ottawa expressing to his officials their concern over certain provisions of that bill which in effect could shut them down overnight. I suggest Ontario would have the biggest brown-out in its history.
The minister knows that the forest industry is far from satisfied. He knows also that the mining industry is far from satisfied and that there are other provinces in addition to British Columbia which have not yet accepted the legislation contained in Bill C-38.
I will grant the minister one victory. Let me compliment him on the stand he took with reference to the McGregor diversion. Clearly the province of British Columbia or, more appropriately, British Columbia Hydro, was fearful of the parasites in the water endemic to the Fraser moving into Arctic waterways, and there was no way to stop it. That was a major concern. The other major concern, spoken or unspoken, was that the federal government had expressed its very serious reservations about the McGregor diversion through the minister. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 2, 1978