1979-01-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering statements made recently at the Can-Am Bowl in Florida by the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo) to the effect that the Liberal government had announced its own form of California's Proposition 13 with its recent cutbacks in fiscal spending, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That the minister be compelled to explain to this House and the people of Canada why her department issued an extravagant 10 x 14 inch glossy invitation requiring a 50-cent stamp to the unveiling of a commemorative plaque in Winnipeg on February 2 in connection with the Canada Games, when a standard size invitation requiring only 14 cents postage would have been equally appropriate and considerably less expensive.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the Department of National Health and Welfare has entered into agreements with numerous band councils for the delivery of health services-for example, the Mohawks at the Bay of Quinte and the Kettle Point Reserves-and in view of the fact that the minister's recent health guidelines are in violation of the agreements and will
adversely affect the delivery of health care, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the minister immediately place a moratorium on the guidelines to permit adequate consultation as defined in the agreements.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AVAILABILITY OF HEALTH SERVICES FOR CANADIAN INDIANS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, although the preceding motion was on a similar subject, its rejection does not preclude the motion I am about to move.
Considering that Canada's Indian population has the highest infant mortality rate, the highest rate of infectious diseases, the highest respiratory disease rate and the lowest level of income in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instructs the Minister of National Health and Welfare to restore immediately health services to Canadian Indians to the level they enjoyed prior to the cutbacks recently announced so that health care is available without qualification.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Beilechasse):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a very important issue which must be dealt with most urgently.
In view of the fact that unemployment seriously affects the economy of the south shore area, that the government must
80047-17'A

January 24, 1979
urgently take the necessary steps to help the private sector become more active in the building industry, and also that the Lauzon shipyards which once provided jobs to some 3,000 workers are about to become extinct with only 400 workers left in June 1979, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the government to implement an effective shipbuilding program for Canada and create a new merchant marine like the one it once had, thereby creating more jobs for workers within this industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
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.
Since certain publicity-seeking societies in the United States have commenced a campaign to persuade Americans not to travel to Canada until such time as Canada outlaws the seal hunt carried on off Newfoundland and in the Gulf since time immemorial, and in view of the fact that this campaign can have no worse effects on the tourism industry in Canada than the general incompetence of the government with respect to tourism, as exemplified by the increase in the air transportation tax recently announced, and in view of the fact that while the American animal protection groups campaign against the Newfoundland seal hunt, the seal hunt for adult seals killed by gunfire continues in the Alaskan islands so that furriers can be supplied with Alaskan seal furs to make into fashionable coats exported to Canada, among other countries, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That the government forbid the importation of Alaskan seal furs or any article of clothing made from Alaskan seal furs until such time as the Americans cease their hypocrisy and cease their attempts to harm the livelihood of hundreds of Canadian fishermen.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that government members have fewer opportunities than members of the opposition during the oral question period as a result of the practices of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Tessier):
That the Chair grant a minimum of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), to move the following motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House calls on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce legislation to provide prorata pensions for widows of disabled veterans in all cases where the pension of the veteran was below 48 per cent, and this House urges that this legislation be introduced forthwith so that it can be passed and put into effect before the present parliament is dissolved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. In view of the Prime Minister's replies yesterday that the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women was either unequivocally not addressing her remarks to the government in her speech of January 10, or that she was unequivocally wrong, and since an examination of her speech makes it obvious that her remarks were directed to the government and its policies regarding the employment of women in the labour force, can the Prime Minister tell the House just what state-
January 24, 1979

ments of Madame Rousseau were, indeed, unequivocally wrong?
Was she wrong when she said that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, the government's own body to advise it on women's issues, had not been consulted before women were excluded from its employment strategy, or was she wrong in her presentation of the figures?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has had ample opportunity to put her question.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. lady would have the answer to her question if she read the question asked by her seatmate, the hon. member for Egmont, yesterday. He made some allegations purportedly based on the statement of the hon. lady, the president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, which I inadvertently called the Voice of Women yesterday. He made these quotes and 1 said that they were quite wrong. I still maintain that they are wrong, and I challenged Madame Rousseau or the hon. lady from Kingston to quote any evidence to the contrary.
The allegation refers to "official statements"-presumably government statements, if that is the context-and reads as follows:
-in "official statements" women are considered either "responsible for the high rate of unemployment" or are being "used as scapegoats and as a screen for a chronic inability to redress the economy"-
This is not true. No one on that side or on Mrs. Rousseau's side can quote any evidence indicating that the ministers have said that. I know the opposition has attempted to deform the truth by alleging that, but they have never brought forward any evidence of that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. He might consult his own record, the record of the Minister of Finance or the record of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to find out where they have, indeed, used those statements.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: In view of the fact the Prime Minister has referred to the comments of the head of the government's Advisory Council on the Status of Women as being "unequivocally wrong", I should like to ask him what her status is, in the face of this public disavowal of her advice.
When the Prime Minister gets information which he does not like, is he going to term both the bearer and the bad news as being unequivocally wrong? Is this the kind of treatment public servants will get in the future?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a clear lack of logic in the hon. lady's question. First of all, she said that we have made the statements and that we have to consult the record.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: That is correct.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. lady has a shred of evidence, she should stand up and quote what part of the record bears that out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mrs. Rousseau has not quoted the record, nor has the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. It they have some evidence, let us hear it. That is my first point. My second point is that I did not allude to all statements. I made it clear in my answer-


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Now we are being selective.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, yes, selective. I was answering a question.
I made it quite clear that I have not read the report and that it would be studied by the minister responsible for the status of women, the Minister of Justice, who is attending a federal-provincial conference in Vancouver now. He will be back in the House tomorrow and no doubt he will have taken cognizance of the report and will be prepared to discuss it. I made it quite clear that I had not read it. What I answered were the allegations of the hon. member for Egmont. I said that those statements were wrong. That does not mean I reject all advice coming from outside sources: on the contrary, we set up this advisory council because we think it has a very important role to play.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But surely no logic would compel me to say that in accusations we have said some things which we never said; I must accept this as fact. I do not accept it as fact. I challenge the hon. lady to prove the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Now that the Prime Minister is being selective in the statements which he accepts and does not accept, would he take a look at the Unemployment Insurance Act and what it has done to women throughout the country? There are a good many others of that nature.
In order that this matter and the allegations the Prime Minister made can be properly dealt with, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he will arrange that the recent reports and statements of the advisory committee be refered to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration so that members of parliament will have the right and the opportunity to question Madame Rousseau on the statements she has put forward, including the one that her committee was not called into consultation or asked for advice

January 24, 1979
Oral Questions
in formulating employment strategy as it applies to the women of this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands makes the suggestion that my allegations be dealt with. Let them be dealt with now, Mr. Speaker. I have told the hon. lady that I answered certain questions asked by the hon. member for Egmont. I dealt with them. If the hon. member wants to deal with them by bringing contrary proof, iet her do so. She has not done so, she has just made wild allegations.
In so far as her suggestion that I am being selective is concerned, this is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. Every time opposition members stand in the House they are being selective. They always quote things out of context; they always quote things which seem to be detrimental to the government. I am asked a question which is selective in its very terms. The hon. member chooses certain phrases from what Mrs. Rousseau said and I attempt to answer those phrases, yet rather than him being the selective one, it turns out that I am the selective one. I am sure nothing could be more ridiculous, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the Prime Minister has not had a chance yet to read the document from the chairperson of the commission. If he looks at pages 1 and 3, references 1 and 4, he will see the specific reference to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I am sorry he seems to be more anxious to win some debating points than to deal with the substance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: He seems more interested in that than dealing with the substance of a very important statement.
I refer to what the chairperson said at page 6, Mr. Speaker, and I ask the Prime Minister whether her statement referring to the fact that the "government does not know its own objectives, or does not make them known" relates directly to the other report that was published, namely, the Summary of Women in the Public Service, which indicated that the "government has failed to address the fundamental barriers preventing the equality of women in the public service such as the use of women as a reserve labour pool and their segregation into female ghettos." Is that also, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, unequivocally wrong, Mr. Speaker?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday, and I repeat it today, that I have not read the report.


An hon. Member:: Well, read it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have not read it, either. Nor have you, and nor have you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You have not read it, and they have not read it up there-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I bet you that the Clerk of the House and even the young lady sitting at your feet have not read it. A lot of us have not read it.
I told you, Mr. Speaker, that we have a minister who is responsible for this area who has or who will read it and who will deal with the substance. I do object when members of the opposition, with selective questions, try to pinpoint some area and try to nail the government with it. If they are quoting some areas which are inaccurate, I will say they are inaccurate, but I will not deal with the whole substance until the minister has returned.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I find it passing strange that the Prime Minister can say something is unequivocally wrong when he has not, in fact, read the report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would like to know whether the Prime Minister thinks that the chairperson was correct when she suggested in her question that the Advisory Council on the Status of Women is being used by the government for advice only when it is faced with emergency situations.
In view of the kind of performance the Prime Minister gave yesterday and today in respect of a very serious allegation by the chairperson of the advisory council, is that the view the Prime Minister takes, only to use the council in cases of political necessity?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member draws weak applause from his side by asking how I can say a thing is unequivocally wrong if I have not read it. Surely that is a sign of either stupidity or bad faith. I answered the specific question by the hon. member. Let me read from page 2437 of Hansard where the hon. member for Egmont is quoted as saying:
-in "official statements" women are considered either "responsible for the high rate of unemployment"-
Apparently in our statements we have said that. We have not, and I make that clear again on page 2439 of Hansard. 1 was singling out a particular point quoted by the hon. member for Egmont to the effect that in some way the government was blaming women for the increase in the size of unemployment figures. This I say is unequivocally wrong; I did not say the whole report was wrong. On the contrary, and I repeat, we set up this advisory committee in order that it could give the government its good advice, and it has given good advice in the past.
This was not the report of the committee; this was a private opinion expressed by the president at some point in the pro-
January 24, 1979

ceedings, and she happens to be wrong in some of her facts. Surely, to say-


Mr. Clark:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says "Oh, oh!". He has found something, "Oh, oh!".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: You are the one who has found something.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We now know that the Leader of the Opposition can find something sometimes, "Oh, oh!".


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Boy, are you ever testy today.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I want to assure him in advance that it is direct and to the point, and I just hope that his answer will be the same.
The Toronto-Dominion Bank has announced an increase in its Chargex lending rate to a scandalously high level of 21 per cent. The other chartered banks have already indicated that they will follow suit. In light of this situation, and in terms of the Prime Minister's responsibility for over-all government policy, I would like to ask him if he will call in the heads of the banks and obtain a commitment from them immediately that they will take steps to roll back these totally unwarranted increases which will force up the already high cost of living for Canadians.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am meeting with some business leaders, and I believe there are some bankers included, tomorrow and I will certainly consider raising the point which the hon. member has raised to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wonder if he would also want me to raise with them the fact that they have made some settlements with wage earners in the banks that in my opinion are rather high and may be inflationary. Would the hon. member like me to raise that point as well?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since bank employees are among the lowest paid in the country, I would like the Prime Minister to tell me which one he has in mind, and would he do
Oral Questions
that today and not put it off to a later time? I hope that the Prime Minister will follow up and that he is not playing rhetorical games, because I will ask him about the matter again after he has had his meeting.
As the Prime Minister knows, there is already legislation which stops other lending institutions, such as Household Finance, from charging the kind of rates that the protected Canadian banks are now charging consumers. Will he take immediate steps to bring forward an amendment to existing bank laws which will stop the banks from gouging Canadian consumers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that the standing committee on finance, of this House, has been dealing with the problem of the Bank Act revision for several weeks. Indeed, it has been working very hard and meeting several times a day. I hope the members of his party who have any representations to make along these lines or any other will be there to make those representations. There is a committee meeting on this very subject. If the hon. member wishes to propose amendments to the Bank Act, surely he should do it in an effective way, rather than trying to make waves.
In so far as high wage settlements are concerned, I am not making any particular accusation.


John Edward Broadbent: You did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am saying that there have been some settlements which seem intolerably high.


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There have been some bank settlements with some of their employees-


An hon. Member:: Which ones?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see some of the members in the back row want more specifics. I just had a question from their leader, if they would listen, who was suggesting that indeed there must have been because they are the lowest paid and there must be some form of catch-up. I take it that is the point-


An hon. Member:: You raised it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. Some of them shake their head no, and this one remains silent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Prime Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot say to members of the Conservative party, as he did just a minute ago, that they are not being specific enough, and then make gratuitous accusations about bank employees without documenting his own case.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

January 24, 1979
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: In this context, I would like to ask the Prime Minister, since he has referred to the bill being before committee and since, in fact, we have already requested in that committee that steps be taken to stop the banks from overcharging for consumer loans, to commit his government to taking the same action so that Canadian consumers will not be gouged by the banks.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have legislation before this House which attempts to protect consumers and we are prepared to discuss it if the various House leaders can make time for it. I was making an accusation which the opposition wants me to make specific. I do not remember the particular bank which made the settlement, but there has been a collective agreement signed.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not remember the name of the particular bank.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Ask O'Hagan about the Bank of Montreal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It may be the Bank of Montreal, as the hon. member for Edmonton Centre suggests, but I do not remember. I am just saying that we are disturbed by some high settlements in banks and in other industrial areas in the country. We are concerned that there be a new spurt of inflationary push in some of these sectors. I intend talking to some business leaders about this when I meet them on Friday of this week.
If the Leader of the New Democratic Party is concerned that some areas have been badly paid in the past, I think there can be a provision for catch-up, but it is important that there be no high settlements in the two-digit figures, particularly if we in this country are to keep the inflationary spiral from being born again.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. A few moments ago I proposed a motion concerning unemployment on the south shore specifically, as well as the lack of work at the Lauzon shipyards. My question is therefore as follows. Would the minister be prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues that the Canadian frigate construction program which he announced during the last session be advanced so as to create jobs for hundreds of workers who normally work in the shipyards, especially in Lauzon, in order to ease the burden of unemployment insurance and eventually of social welfare?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: I am
sorry, Mr. Speaker; I was engaged and did not realize the question was for me, so I would ask the hon. member to repeat it. I was dealing with something of great national importance.
[ Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall repeat my question to the Minister of National Defence. I think he is defending us more than we might think.
My question was as follows: I said that a while ago I presented a motion to this House with a view to asking parliament to urge the government to speed up the shipbuilding program so as to improve the employment situation which is a big problem in my region. My question to the minister is as follows: Would he be prepared to recommend to his cabinet colleagues to advance the Canadian frigate construction program he announced during the last session in order to give jobs to those workers of shipyards who are at present unemployed and who will soon have to resort to welfare assistance if they are not given work?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That, too, is a matter of great national importance and one to which my colleagues in cabinet in total are giving special attention.
There is a plan to work more ships from our fleet into that schedule for refit and repair. I cannot give precise details at this time, but I would be very happy to get the details of scheduling, because I &ould not want to mislead in any way, so that my hon. friend from Bellechasse will have precise information on the time that work will be going to the shipyards. We want to keep them occupied, not only with ships from my department but other ships as well.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Since the minister seems to be positive in his answer, can he tell more precisely if this is going to happen in the near future and if the necessary submissions have been presented to the Treasury Board to carry out this program to keep these shipyards workers out of a still worse unemployment situation?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are giving it the highest priority, as I said to the hon. gentleman. Indeed, in answer to some personal representations I have had from my colleague from Levis, I am getting the precise information of the dates which we are trying to speed up as much as possible so that there will not be a gap in employment in those very important shipyards.
January 24, 1979

Oral Questions


POST OFFICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Postmaster General.
I should like to ask whether consideration has been given to the statement made by the Postmaster General, that Canada's postal problems could be solved by firing 500 inside workers who were causing all the trouble. Did the Postmaster General give the Prime Minister a list of these 500 recreant individuals, and what consideration has the government given to carrying out this policy which is a body blow at the whole question of bargaining? It is a very serious statement. I have been waiting a couple of days for the minister, and he is not here.


An hon. Member:: He was here yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister, being all admission, I know will be able to give a full and complete answer on a problem as serious as this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General is in Moncton, New Brunswick, on official business. I understand he was in the House yesterday, but I think the right hon. gentleman was too busy with his own members yesterday to notice that he was here.
I will have further discussions with the Postmaster General. I do know that he made this statement and I do know he is attempting to bring the matter to cabinet to discuss it further with us. I cannot vouch for the particular figure of 500, but I think even the right hon. gentleman would know that in any group there are some troublemakers and you can do without those.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where is Jack?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is very important that the leaders, I presume-the leaders in any group-straighten out those troublemakers.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, normally I admire the Prime Minister when he is witty, but not when he is half-witty in his transcendingly happy mood today. It is obvious that across this country there are in the Liberal party thousands and thousands who are very discontented and are bringing it to his notice that the government is not doing anything. Is that the reason he is in such a truculent state today?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am not as good a witness as the right hon. member, but it seems to me it was on that side of the House that there was some discontent with their leader in the past couple of days.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the fact that yesterday the Minister of Finance committed the government to following a high interest rate policy and said that it had no intention of changing it, and given the fact that there have been three increases in the interest rate since the last report on Canada's economic prospects made by the government, is the government in the process of preparing new economic forecasts, or is it the position of the government that high interest rates will have no effect on investment next year and, therefore, the real rate of growth?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 cannot be precise in saying whether or not the government is preparing new economic forecasts. I do know that the Department of Finance is constantly updating its forecasts and I would not be surprised if it is in the process of doing that now.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the Prime Minister. Given the fact that there is a considerable debate going on across the nation now among well informed people about whether or not the change in domestic interest rate policy is necessary in relation to the dollar, which presumably was the reason given, and given the absolutely fundamental importance of this for the growth of the economy and decline in unemployment, I ask the Prime Minister whether he will give a reference to the standing committee so that we can open a debate and have witnesses from all over the country, together with the governor of the Bank of Canada and various other people, in order to examine whether it is essential at this time to have a high interest rate policy, when traditional economic analysts suggest that we do not need it, and when there have been times that it has not been necessary to have high interest rates to keep protection of the dollar, such as was the case between 1971 and 1973. Nothing could be more fundamental to the future of the economy of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the bewilderment of the hon. member. As a member of the economic profession, I am sure that he is very concerned with these matters and he knows better than I do the fact that the economists themselves are very much divided in this debate. I am sure if we had the hearings that he refers to, we would hear conflicting views: we would have a lot of economists saying one thing on one hand, and reference to Trudeau's one-armed economists on the other hand. I am sure we would have two views on just about everything.
The interesting point is that we would also have two views from the opposition party. For instance, the hon. member's leader is talking about a deficit, a very large one, and the financial critic for the opposition as late as a few months ago was suggesting that we must hold the budgetary deficits steady-
2512

January 24, 1979
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary State for External Affairs. Yesterday, the Minister issued a press release announcing the government has submitted a claim for some $6 million to the Soviet Union for the expenses of cleaning up after the crash of Cosmos 954. It made this claim under the Convention of International Liability for damage caused by space objects, otherwise known as Treaty 7.
Could the minister explain to the House why the government failed to claim under Treaty 6 where, under article 5, paragraph 5, the Soviets would have been required to pay all expenses incurred in the recovery of returning space objects?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will as soon as I get a chance to look at Treaty 6.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I have to tell the hon. member that I have relied upon the advice of our legal experts on this matter. It was their judgment that this was the proper and appropriate way to proceed. I must confess that, not being a legal person myself, I do not know what the answer is to the hon. member's question.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, the main bone of contention in the debate that took place in this House last January over this matter was whether it should be under Treaty 7 or Treaty 6, and I am amazed that it appears the minister has not read either of them.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand he was in charge in the final stages of this operation. Could he tell us what the total cost of the operation to all departments is, so we will know what fraction the Russians have been asked to pay for?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions raised on this matter before the standing committee at that time. We gave the information that was then available to us. I think some of the information was provided by the Department of National Defence and some was provided by the Atomic Energy Control Board which comes under my jurisdiction and to which the hon. member has referred. I am not sure what other departments have submitted estimates of out-of-pocket costs which they have incurred.

I would be very pleased to see if that information could be brought together and submitted to the hon. member, if it has not already been put on the record before the standing committee.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. In view of the fact that a consortium of cable operators and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation have shown a willingness to proceed with plans to transmit via satellite, live, proceedings of the House of Commons to all parts of the country, would the minister use her good offices to ensure that this goal is reached with the least possible delay?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously desirable that the TV broadcasting of parliamentary debates be given the widest distribution possible. I can only be delighted that the CBC is contemplating offering its services to the public.
As for the Rogers TV Cable Limited project, we will recall that the CRTC indicated its preference for the establishment of a consortium for the distribution of the debates of the House. Whatever the case may be, both projects imply the use of the satellite, which is a good thing, and I can only encourage both initiatives.
There is, of course, another alternative, namely direct broadcasting by the CBC of at least the oral question period. That way 99 per cent of the population would be able to follow the debates of the House.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport relating to the aborted Loto Select program.
A month and a half ago the minister indicated to the House that she would be prepared to make available to the House and to the Canadian public a full accounting of money that was committed to date and which was wasted under the Loto Select program. Would the minister now keep the commitment that she made and will she give the House an indication of how much money has been confirmed as wasted in the Loto Select program and what the face value is of all accounts which still remain to be settled?
January 24, 1979


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. gentleman will be delighted to hear that he should have asked his question yesterday, because I do have some news for him.
An agreement in principle has been reached between General Instruments and Loto Canada. However, all the lawyers involved are presently fine-tuning the final results and I expect to report the final details to the House of Commons in three weeks.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I hope they will have more success in getting out of the contract than the government had in getting into it.
Could the minister now confirm to the House that her officials signed a $5 million contract with Addressograph-Mul-tigraph of Canada Ltd. in September of last year at the same time the minister was negotiating an end to the Loto Select program, and could she tell the House what it will cost the Canadian public for this particular mistake?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I deny that there is any mistake involved. Anyone involved in business knows that if you have a large business such as the corporation of Loto Canada, the corporation of Ontario and the corporation of Quebec, involved in a business undertaking, in order to rationalize the market between the two there is a cost involved. That cost will be considerably less than has been suggested by the media and by the hon. member.
I think the hon. member should also keep in mind that in order to secure a mass market of some $200 million annually, gross, to the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and $200 million annually to the people of Canada in Loto Canada, there is a price to be paid. It will be paid and the amount will be made known.
With regard to the specific question of Addressograph-Mul-tigraph of Canada Ltd., the matter is in the hands of counsel.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Chief of the Defence Staff, who occupies a position similar to that of a deputy minister, is reported recently, at a conference of defence associations, to have urged that military supporters should campaign to put pressure on members of parliament and cabinet ministers on the question of the maintenance of defence spending.
Does this represent new government policy, replacing the concept accepted hitherto that such political pronouncements should be made not by deputy ministers but by responsible ministers of the Crown?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I certainly accept the statement of policy as it should be, made by the hon. member for Greenwood. I cannot comment on the particular quote about which he asks me. I do not know when and where that was said and in what context, but 1 will gladly find out and discuss it with the deputy or with one of my generals-and I do not listen to all my generals all the time, either. I will gladly look into the matter. 1 think the position is as the hon. gentleman stated it, that policy is enunciated by ministers, by the government, and not by members of the armed forces.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I might point out to the Prime Minister that this statement was made on January 18 in the Chateau Laurier by Admiral Falls who is Chief of the Defence Staff. What action will the Prime Minister take, or what action has been taken, to convey to Admiral Falls and others in similar positions that on political matters the political authorities speak for the Government of Canada, and not public servants?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have met and had discussions with Admiral Falls on many occasions, and I can assure the hon. member that he is a very distinguished officer of the armed forces and I have high regard for him.


An hon. Member:: Having it both ways again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, this is always the way: the truth is not always as simple and clearcut as the socialists would have it. I do not think even the leader of the New Democratic Party can fault me for saying 1 have high regard for Admiral Falls-and that is not having it both ways. If, indeed, he made any mistake, which I said I did not know of but with regard to which I would inquire, 1 will draw it to his attention and see that this mistake is not repeated. Surely this is the proper way of doing things.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General of Canada.
In view of the fact that ever since the death penalty has been abolished the number of crimes has continually risen throughout the country, and in view of the fact that in the last two weeks there has been a number of sordid murders in the Montreal area, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to eventually bring back before the House the question of capital punishment? If so, would he consider instead holding a referendum throughout the country so as to leave the
2514

January 24, 1979
Oral Questions
decision on that matter to the citizens of Canada rather than to the 264 members of parliament?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to indicate to the hon. member that contrary to his allegations there has been a decline in the commission of violent crimes since 1976. Let me quote some figures. Thus, in 1975 there were 603 violent acts per 100,000 of population, and in 1977 there were 581.7 violent crimes per 100,000. This means there was a very significant decline. So I do not think the recommendations of the hon. member should be followed up. Hence the government has no intention of reconsidering the question of the death penalty.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In view of the fact that Canadian and United States negotiators have reached a tentative agreement on east coast fishing rights which calls for reciprocal fishing to resume in the disputed area while the question of settling the boundary line goes to international arbitration, will the minister indicate the terms of the tentative agreement and tell us whether there are any bilateral agreements with foreign fleets fishing in this area which have to be altered or reviewed, and will he assure us that the need to refer this matter to an international tribunal does not in any way indicate a breakdown in relations between Canada and the United States?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I welcome this opportunity to tell the House that I was advised this morning by our negotiator, Mr. Cadieux, that an arrangement or agreement along the lines roughly outlined by the hon. member has been reached. I shall be meeting with Mr. Cadieux at three o'clock this afternoon for a full and detailed briefing, and subsequent to that, in an appropriate way, I shall be making the details known to the House, the country and the parties concerned.
As to the specific questions the hon. member has raised, I can tell the Elouse even in advance of my meeting with Mr. Cadieux that if by "foreign" he means non-Canadian or non-American, then to the best of my knowledge that situation has not been altered by any kind of arrangement. However, I will look into that aspect.
On the question of our relationship with the United States, I can say that the arrangements which have now apparently been made have been arrived at in a most amicable manner and there has certainly been no difficulty whatever other than the obvious difficulties which arise when dealing with a complex matter of this kind. May I take this opportunity to offer

the highest congratulations to Mr. Cadieux, a distinguished servant of Canada, who has done a superb job in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED CHANGE OF AIR CANADA OPERATIONS FROM HEATHROW TO GATWICK
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It arises out of the determination of the United Kingdom government to move Air Canada's London operations from Heathrow to Gatwick.
It is my understanding that the High Commissioner called upon a British cabinet minister to state Canada's position very clearly. Can the hon. gentleman tell the House what response has been received following that meeting? Perhaps he could also outline what further steps Canada intends to take to support the position of Air Canada, bearing in mind that the move would have a major disruptive effect upon our national airline.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member is correct: at my request our High Commissioner has delivered a personal note to the British Foreign Office and Commonwealth Office indicating our disagreement with the apparent decision to have Air Canada moved to Gatwick. We have made it clear that we totally support Air Canada in its efforts to resist this proposal.
No formal response has as yet been received to the note which was delivered on the 18th, I believe, or if not on the 18th then certainly on the 19th. In these circumstances, I believe it would be wiser to refrain from answering the second part of the question because I might be anticipating what "the British government is going to say.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Since bilateral air talks are currently going on, or will soon be going on, can the minister tell us whether Canada is participating in these bilateral negotiations or whether there is any intention of suspending those talks until this matter has been resolved?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I want to be extremely careful in answering that question. Normally, we do not associate bilateral negotiations with the assignment of airport space or anything of that nature. I do not believe, however, that I am going beyond the bounds of logic here if I say that should there be significant losses for Air Canada as a result of its transfer from Heathrow to Gatwick, then clearly, in terms of our bilateral negotiations with the U.K., we would have to take those losses into account in any kind of consideration we might otherwise be disposed to give them in relation to access to other cities in Canada.
January 24, 1979


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for the Environment, who before the Christmas recess committed himself to report to the House as to the result of the privatization scheme affecting the forestry services and, more particularly, the forest products laboratories in Vancouver and Ottawa.
Can the minister tell the House what agreement has been reached with the private sector, and can he tell us if the agreement which has or has not been reached is commensurate with the action which has been taken by his department to send lay-off notices to the scientists involved?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to indicate to the House that an interim board of directors has been set up under the chairmanship of Mr. Bob Rogers who is the chairman and chief executive officer of Crown Zellerbach, who has brought together a very impressive group of people to work with him on this interim board. This indicates to me, and should indicate to the hon. member, that this vindicates the decision which has been made by the government to privatize these two labs. There is a great deal of support in the private sector for this move toward privatization.
Lay-off notices are a technical requirement. Lay-off notices went out from my department on January 12, but offers of employment were sent out at the same time. Mr. Rogers offered employment to all of the employees in these labs and it is my wish that the employees accept this employment so that they can carry on essentially in the fashion to which they have been accustomed. I feel they have done very good work. Their work is known worldwide and I hope they carry on this good work.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the name the minister has given is indeed impressive, and I agree that the employees involved have made a contribution to the forest industry. The question is how this name is backed up with cash, because my information is that there has been no commitment from the private sector up to this point to assume the responsibility of maintaining the budgets of these labs.
Why did the minister find it necessary to send out lay-off notices before guarantees were secured from industry?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the lay-off notice was really a technical requirement. Perhaps the hon. member could address that question to the President of the Treasury Board.
The interim president who has been appointed is now passing the hat around, so to speak. He is contacting various potential contributors, including industry and provincial governments, regarding what money can be found. As I said before, there is confidence that support can be found in order
Ora! Questions
to make up the $3.3 million which will be required to keep the labs operating at the same level as before.


COMPARABILITY OF BENEFITS FOR PUBLIC SERVANTS FORCED TO MOVE BECAUSE OF PRIVATIZATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In the course of the privatization of these labs, the 122 peopie who have received notices are in effect moving to the private sector from the public sector. Are there any negotiations being undertaken by the government with respect to these people in order to ensure comparability of the level of benefits of public servants for those who are being forced to move as a result of this action?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that these people have certain protection under their agreements and arrangements with the Government of Canada. Those will be honoured. The notices were required because of the time-frame involved in order to accomplish our end of March objective. However, the public servants involved will in fact receive the protection to which they are entitled.


GOVERNOR GENERAL
Mr. Speaker:: Yesterday the House agreed to print as an appendix to Hansard the speeches of His Excellency the Governor General and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the ceremonies held in the Senate Chamber on Monday, January 22.
Technical difficulties have arisen in that the Printing Bureau is in a position to print a translation of certain portions of the speech of the Governor General rather than the actual words spoken by His Excellency in the course of his presentation. Rather than print the translations and in order to be more faithful to the words which were spoken, we are equipping ourselves to print that language later in the week, and when the bound version of Hansard is produced in due course, it will appear as an appendix to Hansard for the date which was ordered by the House-Tuesday-and it will be printed as an appendix on the date on which we are able to produce it, which should be later this week.


PRIVILEGE
Jacques Lavoie: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank you for having recognized me today. My

January 24, 1979
Privilege-Mrs. Campagnolo
question of privilege concerns the motion on the same subject that I moved earlier under the terms of Standing Order 43. It is the second time in less than a year that I move a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 and that the Chair does not allow me to move it. I would at least like the Chair to provide us with some explanation in such cases since I went to the trouble of moving this kind of motion so that government members be allowed to speak. I noticed that two members on this side of the House were recognized yesterday and two others today. This is not a very high average. Indeed before the Christmas adjournment I suggested to the Chair, as you will recall, that we should try to get some agreement on this matter. In any case, I shall not repeat myself because I would not want to take up too much of the time of the House. However, there are other means, other standing orders, and I shall follow our rules and bring up the matter again in this House unless the Chair decides otherwise and tries to obtain some agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even if the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Lavoie) has a grievance as concerns the procedure of the House, he must certainly understand that the subject of a motion proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43 must always be of an urgent and important nature. In general, I do not accept that matters concerning the procedure of this House be brought by means of an urgent motion proposed under the specific provisions of Standing Order 43. This is why I simply refused to accept this afternoon a motion on the subject of the procedures of the House which had been moved under Standing Order 43. Later this week or perhaps next week, I shall discuss in more detail points of order raised previously on the subject of motions proposed under Standing Order 43.
For the moment, the House must understand that certain matters can properly be the subject of motions under Standing Order 43 since they may be of an important and urgent nature and require our immediate attention. However, the procedures of this House are certainly always important, and in my opinion such matters should simply never be raised by means of a motion proposed under Standing Order 43.
[English\


MRS. CAMPAGNOLO-CANADA GAMES COMMEMORATIVE BOOK-ALLEGED WASTEFULNESS
Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, during the preliminary proceedings of this House today the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) raised the subject of the Canada Games Council commemorative book which renders the tenth anniversary of the Canada Games into a commemorative volume. In his remarks the hon. gentleman made a wrongful charge of wastefulness against me which I would like to have erased from the record of this House.
Because the invitation to which the hon. member referred was rather large, he felt that I had been wasteful in commis-

sioning it. I would like this House and the people of Canada to know that there was an overrun of the covers of the books of the commemorative volume, and that overrun was used, in a very thrifty manner, to print the invitations to which the hon. member took exception. I therefore feel that he should commend the Canada Games Council for its thoughtfulness in saving money rather than condemn it.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, we have a question here of conflicts between different ministers. We have been receiving letters from the Minister of National Revenue and Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Abbott) to the effect that the government is starting a program to cut down on the paper burden. I show you an example, Mr. Speaker, of what I received in my office telling me about cutting down the paper burden. Also, they sent out this document I am holding up to advise all of us to cut down on paper. Surely there is no need for anything of that size to be sent out. That will not even slip into a mail slot.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


A. Daniel McKenzie: I wish the government would get its act together and cut down the paper burden.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I think hon. members will recognize that this is more in the nature of a disagreement than a question of privilege.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 354, 432, 721, 728, 803, 808, 863 869, 870, 872, 873, 874, 877, 878, 879 and 880.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Bawden: *[DOT] Was the Enterprise Project '77 reported in the 1976-77 annual report of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and, if not, for what reason?
2.	What was the original budget for the Project?
3.	What was the actual cost of the Project including (a) employment of temporary staff in the absence of departmental officers (b) travel expense
January 24, 1979

accounts of departmental officers (c) publications (d) rental of premises for meetings, etc?
4.	What benefits to industry and small business, in particular, were accomplished by the Project?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
1.	"Enterprise 77" is a program which commenced in fiscal year 1977-78.
2.	$1,510,900.
3.	Total cost for 1977-78 $1,441,182 which includes:
(a)	$204,320;
(b)	$401,056;
(c)	$195,448;
(d)	$ 5,195.
4.	The benefits to industry and small business, in particular, accomplished by the Enterprise Canada '77 Project were:
1.	A series of detailed reports on subjects, indicating businessmen's views regarding existing government programs and services useful as the basis of making changes.
2.	Out of the findings, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has:
(a)	developed a business service centre and direct dial system for businessmen to get service regarding any problem they might have with the federal government maze.
(b)	developed a business opportunities sourcing system which, when completed, will be a significant tool for the firm to identify potential sources of supply in Canada, as well as promote their own products to other firms;
(c)	developed the office of the paper burden controller, with the comments of Canadian businessmen as the basis of action;
(d)	provided a useful input for many of the recent policy formulations in support of small/medium business including some tax changes;
(e)	caused a closer review of overlap in federal and provincial programs and services, still ongoing;
(0 affirmed the need to regionalize operations of the department to get closer to its clientele.
3.	Other shorter term benefits to industry and small business, were:
(a)	practical seminars to industry, where requested, on a variety of topics with significant business involvement, including: how to get through U.S. Customs; and select export market seminars;
(b)	a better knowledge of federal and provincial programs and services including promulgation of some 35,000 copies of a book entitled "Canadian Federal Government Services to Business".
Order Paper Questions OMBUDSMAN FOR TRANSPORT CANADA


Mr. MacKay: 1.	Was the recently appointed Ombudsman for Transport Canada granted a security clearance by the RCMP as required for the position and, if not, was such clearance denied on more than one occasion?
2.	Did the RCMP object to her appointment and, if so, were such objections (a) disregarded (b) related to her contacts with foreign nations such as Poland or China?
3.	What was the nature of her contacts, if any?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1.	A person successful in a competition for the function of complaints and privacy co-ordinator for Transport Canada was granted the necessary security clearance for the position by the Deputy Minister of Transport, as prescribed under established security procedures, following consideration of information submitted by the RCMP.
2.	Under the established security procedure, the RCMP is expected to provide factual information, not to state opinions or objections nor make recommendations.
(a)	Not applicable;
(b)	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Is a communications network to be built linking the Department of Veterans Affairs in Ottawa to its new offices in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island and, if so, what is the estimated cost?
2.	Is there possibility that new underwater telephone cable will have to be laid between P.E.l. and the mainland to handle communications between DVA in Ottawa and Charlottetown and, if so, at what cost?
3.	What is the projected administrative cost increase as a result of the decentralization of the Department from Ottawa to Charlottetown?
4.	Will veterans' personal files remain in Ottawa?
5.	What is the expected staff requirements for the Ottawa Office following decentralization in the (a) first (b) second (c) third year?
6.	What is the expected cost of rental of the communications system on an annual basis once the Charlottetown Office is fully operational?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1.	No. A communications network exists at present, and Veterans Affairs will avail themselves of it.
2.	No. The Prince Edward Island Telephone Company has advised us that all telephone traffic between the island and the mainland is carried by microwave transmission facilities which they forecast will be adequate for the foreseeable future.
3.	No administrative cost increase has been forecast as a result of the decentralization of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Charlottetown.
4.	No. The veterans' files will be transferred to Prince Edward Island upon relocation.
5.	The projected size of the small group of employees that will remain in Ottawa after relocation is as follows:

January 24, 1979
Order Paper Questions
First year	25
Second year	25
Third year	25
6.	The expected cost of rental of the required number of telephone sets is forecast to be approximately the same as at present.


Mr. McKinnon: In their final submission for the NFA contract, on what date did the manufacturers of the F-18L indicate that deliveries could begin?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Supply and Services):: In
so far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned: In March, 1982.


Mr. Howie: Have negotiations between the Department of Veterans Affairs and authorities in the Province of New Brunswick concluded in regards to the provision of nursing home beds for veterans in Northeast New Brunswick and, if so, what was the outcome of the negotiations?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: On October 16, 1978, the hon. Brenda Robertson, minister of health for the province of New Brunswick, and I, announced an agreement to provide approximately 60 nursing home beds for veterans in northern and eastern New Brunswick. Under the agreement these beds will be located in the Moncton and Campbellton regions. These facilities are expected to be available for use by veterans by April of 1979 or earlier. The Department of Veterans Affairs will continue to monitor nursing home needs for veterans throughout New Brunswick.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many beds were guaranteed to veterans under the agreement covering the transfer of the (a) Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec City (b) Lancaster Hospital, St. John (c) Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver (d) Westminster Hospital! London (e) Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax (f) Queen Mary Hospital, Montreal to the provincial government?
2.	In each case, how many of the beds were occupied by veterans on (a) January 1, 1977 (b) July 1, 1977 (c) January 1, 1978 (d) July 1, 1978 (e) October 1, 1978 and, how many were for (i) extended (ii) intermediate (iii) acute care?
3.	(a) How many beds in reserve are retained under federal-provincial agreement to serve unexpected needs of veterans requiring acute care (b) have the required number of beds for acute care been available at all times or has the quota been breached in each case?
4.	In each case, how many veterans were on the waiting lists for extended care space on the dates mentioned in Part 2?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. Beds guaranteed to veterans under the transfer agreements specified are:
(a)	Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec	150 beds(b)	Lancaster Hospital, St. John	200 beds(c)	Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver	870 beds(d)	Westminster Hospital, London	882 beds(e)	Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax	285 beds(0 Queen Mary Hospital, Montreal	55 beds
2.
Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec
	Acute	Extended Intermediate and		Total
		Personal Care		
Jan. 1, 1977	12	16	35	63July I, 1977	14	14	37	65Jan. 1, 1978	10	15	36	61July 1, 1978	10	18	37	65Oct. 1, 1978	11	17	37	65Lancaster Hospital, St. John	Jan. I, 1977	17	5	77	99July 1, 1977	13	1	93	107Jan. 1, 1978	16	-	131	147July 1, 1978	16	-	128	144Oct. 1, 1978	17	2	124	143Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver	Jan. 1,1977	105	85	393	583July 1, 1977	111	81	381	573Jan. 1, 1978	117	92	373	582July 1, 1978	103	86	370	559Oct. 1, 1978	118	87	374	579
Westminster Hospital, London
Acute	Psychiatric	Extended	Intermediate and	TotalJan. 1, 1977*	154	263	103	Personal Care 233	753July 1, 1977*	127	253	99	233	712Jan. 1, 1978	17	249	99	246	611July 1, 1978	19	235	112	237	603Oct. 1, 1978	20	229	98	240	587Jan. 1, 1977*	Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax 66 143	2	211July 1, 1977*	94	139	2	235Jan. 1, 1978*	47	135	2	184July I, 1978	1	124	2	127Oct. 1, 1978	1	127	2	130Jan. 1, 1977*	Queen Mary Hospital, Montreal 150 -	150July 1, 1977*	143	143Jan. 1, 1978*	260	260July 1, 1978	7	7Oct. 1, 1978	5	-	-	5* Prior to transfer	
3. (a) Beds are not held "in reserve" under the federal-provincial transfer agreements to serve unexpected needs of veterans requiring acute care. The stipulation contained in the agreements with respect to acute care is that a veteran requiring treatment for his pensionable condition shall be admitted. If DVA were to insist on the beds being held in reserve, we would also have to pay the hospital for doing so. Instead, the province guarantees that the beds will be available on a priority use basis. Any of the beds not in use by veterans are available for use by the hospital for non-veterans. However, if all of the priority use beds are occupied and no appropriate bed is available for a veteran seeking treatment for his pensionable condition, then the first appropriate bed that becomes available shall be allocated for use by that veteran. Actual
January 24, 1979

admission to acute care beds is at the discretion of the hospital medical staff, however, the hospital may not refuse admission without first referring the case to a designated official of the department.
(b) To our knowledge the quota of acute care beds has not been breached in any transferred facility. Our experience has consistently been that the agreements provide more acute care beds than are required by veterans seeking treatment for their pensionable condition.
4.	Waiting list numbers for the dates mentioned in (2) are not available. The following outlines the number of veterans awaiting admission for extended care as of December 1, 1978:
Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec	10
Lancaster Hospital, St. John	None
Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver	13
Westminster Hospital, London	10
Camp Hill Hospital, Halifax	65**
Queen Mary Hospital, Montreal	None
**One additional ward was recently opened, and as admissions occur the waiting list will be reduced considerably. As of December 21 the waiting list had been reduced to 25.


Mr. Howie: 1.	What areas of research now qualify for grants under the Natural Sciences and Engineering Councils Strategic Grants Programme?
2.	Is consideration being given to expanding the scope of the programme in terms of subject areas of research and are any areas related to Forestry Research being considered?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada is concerned:
1.	Energy, environmental toxicology, oceans.
2.	In 1979-80, the following subject areas will be added: communications, food/agriculture.
Forestry research was considered for inclusion in the strategic grants program but was not retained. NSERC offers already a special program of assistance to forestry research.


Mr. Howie: From June 1, 1978 to date, what amount was granted to businesses under the Scientific and Technical Information Programme to employ senior students in research and development programmes and what amount was granted to students in (a) New Brunswick (b) Nova Scotia (c) Prince Edward Island?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: The amount from June 1 to December 22, 1978 in Canada is $219,750. Amount granted to (a) New Brunswick-$11,700; (b) Nova Scotia-$15,100; (c) P.E.I.-none.
Order Paper Questions PERSONNEL AT NSERC


Mr. Howie: How many persons are employed by the Natural Science and Engineering Council?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Canada is concerned: 60.


Mr. Howie: Where is the Industrial Materials Research Institute located and from whom does it rent space and what is the annual rental?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned the reply is as follows: The Industrial Materials Research Institute is located at 1000 de Serigny Street, Complexe Bienville, 6th Floor, Suite 640, Longueuil, Quebec. This space is rented by the Department of Public Works on NRC's behalf from "Cooperation Premiere Quebec". Annual rental is $10,547.16.


Mr. Howie: How many persons are employed by the Industrial Materials Research Institute and what is the projected employment when it is to be in full operation?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: As of December 31, 1978, three persons are employed by the institute. When the institute is in full operation, it is planned to have 200 persons working at the institute, of which approximately 120 would be NRC employees.


Mr. Howie: On what date is the Industrial Materials Research Institute expected to be fully operational?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: The building is expected to be completed by 1981 with full operation of the institute expected during fiscal year 1983-84.


Mr. Howie: From April 1 to December 1, 1978, what amount was spent on the programme for industry laboratory projects?

January 24, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: $2,983,815.


Mr. Howie: For the Fiscal year 1977-78, what amount was spent on the programme for industry laboratory projects?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: $4,438,093.


Mr. Howie: How many extra mural contracts were let for professional and special services under the programme for industry laboratory projects in the period April 1 to December 1, 1978?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the answer is as follows: One extra mural contract was let for professional and special services in the period 1 April 1978 to 1 December 1978.


Mr. Howie: From June 1, 1978 to date, what amount was spent under the Cooperative Projects with Industry Programme?


Pierre Bussières: In so far as the National Research Council is concerned, the reply is as follows: Nil.



POINT OF ORDER


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I should like to bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that yet for another day he has not answered a number of questions which I put on the order paper. I intend to remind him on a continuing basis of the fact that many of these questions require very simple information which could be very easily available if the parliamentary secretary would do his job. I should like to encourage him to get to work in providing answers to those questions.


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is intentional neglect.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 12 and 13.
[ Translation]



REQUEST FOR COPY OF CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO STUDY ON CLASSIFICATION OF CERTAIN JOBS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 12-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of approximately 1600 job studies in the construction trades across Canada prepared in order to update the Canadian Classification and Dictionary of Occupants and contracted to South-am Business Publications, Don Mills, Ontario.
Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Unfortunately I cannot comply with that motion since the information on jobs we have asked the contractors to gather for those studies may, in many instances, be regarded as confidential by the businesses concerned. So that is why the businesses which provided the contractors with that information received from the former department of manpower and immigration the guarantee that the data provided would be confidential. Under those circumstances, it follows that we cannot table those studies in the House and I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.

Shall notice of motion No. 12 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion withdrawn.
CANADIAN COUNCIL OF CHRISTIANS AND JEWS Motion No. 13-Mr. Cossitt:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, telegrams and letters having to do with any negotiations between the Department of the Secretary of State and the Canadian Council of Christians and Jews for the years 1976, 1977 and 1978.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, the correspondence and documents requested are voluminous and would be inordinately time consuming and costly to prepare. In view of the above information, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt) I would ask that the motion be transferred for debate, because I think there is a difference of opinion on this.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
January 24, 1979


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, January 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, it is rather regrettable that this bill has taken the form in which it has been presented to the House. I think it would have been quite easy for the opposition to have assured the government that had this been presented as a simple bill to establish a minister of fisheries, such a bill could have received speedy consideration in the House and would have been subject to very little debate.
This House has been waiting some time for the opportunity to give serious consideration to some of the problems pertaining to the fishing industry, and while the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has met on occasions when it had to, it has also had to deal with other business pertaining to the multitude of facets of this government which the committee considered. It has therefore been virtually impossible to get an extended opportunity to question the minister in respect of the fishing industry per se. Therefore, it could have been a very welcome opportunity, had a bill establishing a minister of fisheries been presented to the committee, to have considered such a bill.
In view of the fact that we have a pot-pourri of legislation tucked into one cover which covers many facets of government reorganization and does not relate solely to fisheries, it has become, so far as I am concerned, a subject of debate both as it relates to fisheries and to forestry. It could have been much more conveniently and expeditiously handled had this bill not been a handful of bills under one cover. But this seems to be the path which the government has chosen to follow during the past ten years. It has defied the House of Commons and defied us in this bill, in the banking legislation and in a number of other instances, with the enumeration of which I will not bore this House.
In view of the fact that this bill is a whole package wrapped up in one cover, it makes it necessary that certain facets of the government and its policies related to both fisheries and forestry become a matter of debate in the House when they
Government Organization
might very well have been debated in the committee very quickly without detriment to normal procedure in the House.
The government has been told repeatedly that this is the wrong method to obtain quick passage of both what they and we consider to be important and pertinent legislation, but it is indicative of the government's tendency and that of the Liberal party as a whole to be so sure of itself in power that it shall dictate to all those who participate in the House just how they want things to be done, without any consideration for other interested parties.
For that reason the bill has become an issue which will be debated to some extent. I should like to say to the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour), who has not been in the House very long, that when he referred to the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) in his introductory speech on this bill as having nothing constructive to offer, he should have been aware of the fact that this party has shown historically that it has been constructive, that it has provided leadership, initiative and suggestions for improvement in policies both in the field of fisheries and forestry year after year. In fact, it was a Conservative government which established a department of forestry and a Liberal government which removed that department by amalgamating it with two others.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Even though you, sir, have sat in this House longer than most of us, you show a greater misunderstanding on a daily basis of the responsibilities of this nation and its integral parts. Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for North-umberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) becomes so interested in his constituency and the salmon that swim there that he will speak in the House in a positive way, beseeching his government to bring in a proper surveillance system so that we may possibly have some salmon both for commercial and sports fishing, only then perhaps will he have the right to throw barbs at others. In view of the complaints I received, he received and the minister received respecting the surveillance procedures of the government, the hon. member should contain himself and his minor explosions until he can relate to the positive.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: That has nothing to do with forestry.


Fred Alward McCain: If the hon. member was concerned about the responsibilities of the province in a real and honest way, he would have long since spoken in the House against a taxation structure which was imposed upon resources, the property of the provinces. But like all other hon. members who can be whipped into subservience by the Liberal party, every Liberal member from New Brunswick supported a tax structure which made it very difficult for development to continue in natural resource industries. It was only at the urging of provincial governments and members of the opposition that forestry happened to be excluded as a resource for tax purposes from that legislation.

January 24, 1979
Government Organization


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Since the learned member is interested in these matters, no doubt we can anticipate a very strong speech on behalf of the protection of salmon, cost sharing for bud-worm spraying in New Brunswick, and a better developmental program for the resource industry in general in Atlantic Canada. When he makes such a speech, I will be very happy to hear his constructive interjections.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Which government pays 80 per cent of forestry development?


Fred Alward McCain: Which government withdrew the cost-sharing program whereby the Government of Canada cost-shared with the industry and the government of New Brunswick in the budworm spraying program? The Liberal government withdrew from that program.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Which government pays 80 per cent of forestry development?


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member's question is born of ignorance. It depends on how much of the expenditure spent on behalf of forestry in New Brunswick he wishes to include in the total package. On individual agreements certain amounts are paid by the Government of Canada. In the total expenditures the Government of Canada does not pay 80 per cent of the money which is spent on behalf of forestry in the province of New Brunswick. I am sure the hon. member well knows that fact. Why has it been more difficult for New Brunswick to conclude certain arrangements with the government in developmental agreements?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: Of course, the answer is that the minister concerned insisted that the method of expenditures should pass over his desk, and he happened to be a minister from New Brunswick.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: I do not really object to interjections; I enjoy debate and argument. Perhaps Mr. Speaker can extend my time to compensate for the interjections of the hon. member, and then the hon. member can have all the time he requires. I enjoy debating with the hon. member.
To come back to the comments of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's -St. Barbe, it was a Conservative government which established the department of forestry. It was a Liberal government which made a conglomeration of environment, forestry and fisheries which did not work. It was a Conservative opposition which pleaded with the government to re-establish the department of forestry ever since it was abandoned, and to re-establish ever since it was abandoned the department of fisheries as a separate department. That is the prestige which the industry and management needs, and that is a constructive suggestion. It has been primarily through the committee work of the opposition that the Minister of Fisher-

ies and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) was led to establish the various programs presently in place. We are still out in front.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), by fisheries ministers in the Atlantic provinces and by fishermen in their presentations to government, we need a fleet renewal program and do not have one. There is no means by which we can find the money to expand that fleet, even on a loan basis. We are out in front of the Grits and the Socialists in this regard; we have led them all the way.
The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment proposed to establish something similar to the Central Mortgage and Housing proposition. This was recommended by the hon. member for South Shore. So far it has not been established. The Minister of Fisheries and the Environment assured us that there would be plenty of money for subsidies, boat replacements and renewals. So far fishermen are not permitted to buy certain boats and the Central Mortgage and Housing type structure has not been established. Fishermen are sailing dangerous boats. They cannot afford to replace their boats under the present structure, particularly with 14 per cent, 15 per cent, 16 per cent and 17 per cent rates of interest they would be required to pay if they borrowed money through normal channels.
I suggest the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe should take a careful look at the record to see what his predecessor did and said on behalf of the fishing industry and the seal hunt. He should take a look at what the present minister of fisheries of Newfoundland said on behalf of the fishermen and what he proposed when he was a member of the House. Instead of criticizing what has not been put forward, perhaps the hon. member should criticize the government for what has not been adopted. That would be much more in line.
Because a former member of this House, the present minister of fisheries in Newfoundland, proposed a developmental program for Newfoundland, Atlantic Canada and fisheries, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have scoffed and scorned at those suggestions. They even suggested that they knew nothing about the suggestions long after they had hit the press. Perhaps the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe would do a little reading of history and get his facts straight.
Another matter which continues to concern me is the fact that young people in Atlantic Canada cannot obtain fishing licences. There is no flexibility in the quotas allowed by the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and there is no opportunity for young people to become involved other than the hard way-by buying out someone else. The industry has survived ever since the earliest explorers arrived on the shores of this continent. It was based upon the belief that today a man could fish and retire so that tomorrow or the next day his son may take over; or that if a man worked in a crew on a fishing vessel and decided to purchase his own boat and become his own boss, a licence would be available.
I am aware that things have not always been as they are today. We were not always as conscious as we are today about
January 24, 1979

fish supply. Also I am aware that some of the requests for licences being made by inshore fishermen would be an inconsequential addition to the present catch. For the sake of providing young and interested people with opportunities to participate in the fishing industry, we require more leniency, flexibility and adjustability in the issuance of licences for fishing on the Atlantic coast. That is a must.
I have cited an example of a man who could become involved in the fishing industry only by purchasing a very old boat which perhaps was not quite safe to sail, yet certainly very expensive to maintain. Because of a regulatory stricture that a man must own a boat for five or six years before he can replace it, with or without assistance, subsidy or loan from the Government of Canada, that man cannot replace his boat even though he owns both the boat and has a licence. This is where we get into the problem of regulations and why we should not be governed by regulations in fisheries or in any other aspect of our society.
I am very much in sympathy with families who have historically fished and who, by virtue of circumstances beyond their control, have been compelled to leave the fishing industry for one, two, three, four, five or six years on some occasions. This may have been for reasons of health, for financial reasons or for family reasons. But whatever those reasons may have been, having left that industry that family can no longer make a re-entry even though the personal circumstances may have changed. Further consideration should be given to these things and I trust that the minister will soften his program.
Once again I make a public appeal to the minister to undertake a surveillance program in the lobster and salmon fisheries that will be effective, particularly in the Atlantic area. We cannot and never will have a commercial fishing industry in Atlantic Canada with the importance it once had as long as poaching goes on at the rate reported today. This is something upon which Statistics Canada does not give us figures. It is rather unfortunate that it does not, but this is something that goes under the table rather than above the table. This does not come under regulation and cannot seem to be regulated or controlled by the government in any way.
The consequences of our lack of surveillance was made perfectly clear to an interparliamentary committee which went to Europe. While we have complained in Canada about the overfishing of salmon on the high seas, the members of that interparliamentary committee which went from this place to visit with members of parliament in Europe were assured by those members of parliament that in no way were they even going to consider negotiation on the fishing of salmon on the high seas until Canada introduced an effective surveillance program of its immediate offshore and freshwater streams.
These are items which I think are of major importance and which the committee should have had an opportunity to discuss. Instead of this bill going to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, the original suggestion was that it should go to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Esti-
Governmertt Organization
mates. That would not give a fisherman much chance to present his point of view or to promote the best interests of the fishing industry. Where it may end up now I am not sure.
The hon. member for South Shore has handled matters pertaining to the fishing industry much better than I am capable of doing because he has fished, and that gives him an expertise which none of the rest of us could possibly posses. However, there are a few things about the bill I wish to mention. The first I should like to refer to is this wrap-up clause 33 which provides for certain possibilities in respect of the transition of duties, responsibilities and functions.
What disturbs me is that this bill has not properly defined all of the fields in which the minister may function. By virtue of the fact that this has not been done, there appears a phrase at the end of the bill in clause 33 which states what shall be done by the deputy minister of fisheries and oceans. Let me quote from line 19 as follows:
-or the appropriate officer of the department of fisheries and oceans, as the case may be, unless the governor in council by order designates another minister, deputy minister or officer of a department or a portion of the Public Service of Canada to exercise such power, duty or function.
I deplore that clause in this bill as it introduces the usual uncertainty which applies to any piece of legislation this government introduces. While it is not the regulatory basket clause that is usually there, it does leave a degree of flexibility for government movement after the establishment of a ministry of fisheries, a degree of flexibility which I fear. I do not know what authority they may give or take from him because of the flexibility there.
One of the great weaknesses of the Department of Fisheries being with the Department of the Environment was that there was no such thing as a deputy minister of fisheries per se throughout most of the period of this combination of responsibilities. Too often the result was that, since there was a deputy minister of the Department of the Environment, that deputy minister was environmentally oriented. I have no quarrel with any man choosing his profession or choosing his items and the order of priorities which those items are given in his own mind. What I do quarrel with, and what I did quarrel with under the old structure, is that there being no equal of a deputy minister on behalf of fisheries the Department of the Environment imposed regulations upon fisheries which were unnecessary and burdensome to that industry.
We now find that the department of forestry is to be put in exactly the same position. That department will find itself combined with environment. I see in this bill no assurance that there will be a deputy minister of forests who will in fact be responsible for forests, who will be able to speak with equal weight with anybody in his department on behalf of forests. I wonder whether this department will now become subject to the selections of attention it may get when the minister appoints a deputy minister of environment. I fear this and I suggest to the government that there should be within the department an equal spokesman for forests as well as for the environment. Those two voices could then be heard in balance, at least, and would not be too far down the line to be listened

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
to by the minister. They would have direct access to the minister on an equal footing.
There are times of conflict between the environment and the forests, and I suppose New Brunswick is a prime example of that conflict when we talk about budworm spraying. Environmentalists speak with one voice and those who favour protection of the forests speak with another. Unless those two voices are heard on an equal basis by a single minister of a department here in Ottawa, the interests of the environmentalists may prevail rather than the interests of the forests.
As we listened to the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) yesterday we were concerned by the suggestion in his remarks that we have increased the number of people at Petawawa. This statement on its own suggests to those who may have heard the news or read the speech, without full knowledge of what is going on, that the research station at Petawawa will in fact be doing more research in the same field it has historically done that research than before.
The minister went on to say the government had accepted some of the suggestions of the Conservative party with regard to cutting government spending. He did not go on to say that the Conservative party had suggested, and has done so since I have been associated with this party, that research was a foundation and an investment in a better future. At no time and in no way has any Conservative in this House suggested that we make savings in respect of research unless such research can be proven to be wasteful. Certainly there is no proof that any research done at Petawawa, or any other research establishment, has been wasteful. We, therefore, never recommended cuts in respect of research.
It is for that reason that I wish to draw to the attention of the minister the suggestion that Petawawa will become one of the foremost research establishments in the country. It has long been recognized as the research establishment of Canada, but now it is to be downgraded, regardless of what the minister has said.
There have been many representations made to the minister in this regard. I for one have consistently suggested there should be more research in respect of the budworm situation. I wish to quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry proceedings at page 2:15, November 28, 1978. I asked this question of the witnesses of the day and the minister:
-I would like to ask the minister if the department has undertaken an assessment of what would have happened to the forests of New Brunswick if there had been no budworm sprayings since 1952?
The minister's reply was as follows:
I read some reports, Mr. Chairman, and as I recall the conclusion was that if the province of New Brunswick did not spray, they probably would have lost all their forest.
I would qualify that by saying that we were talking at that time of the coniferous forests and not the deciduous forests of New Brunswick. I quoted that to show my support for research in depth in respect of forests. This problem has existed for approximately 30 years. It was first attended to by spraying in 1952, some 27 years ago as of this year. Research has not been

adequate enough to find any way or means of controlling that problem other than by spraying. I do not quarrel with the research effort that has taken place with respect to this subject. I do quarrel with the idea that any forest research be reduced in view of the need for that particular item.
I would like to draw to hon. members' attention the statement made by the hon. member for South Shore which is in the same report of the fisheries and forestry committee dated November 28, 1978. At page 2:24 the hon. member said:
The forest industry in Canada already generates one million jobs, $6 billion in foreign trade and $2 billion in federal and provincial taxes annually. Trade figures indicate that Canada's more favourable balance of payments situation in recent months is due largely to our forestry sector-
I might add to that that the minister who was present at that time corrected the hon. member on page 2:25 of the same report, and said:
It is higher than that, it is about $7.5 billion.
He was referring to the balance of trade which was generated by the forest industry. When we become penny wise and pound foolish with the reduction of research in an industry which is generating $7.5 billion in favourable trade balance, I think we are taking the wrong direction.
We have had conflicting reports from different sources as to its impact. A news release, which does not seem to have a date on it but is headed up "The Minister of Environment Canada", reads:
The goal of achieving more for less will, in this case, be accomplished by consolidateding the work of the Forest Fire Research Institute and the Forest Management Institute, both now located in Ottawa.
I quote again from page 2 of that release, which reads:
After consolidation, the staff of Petawawa will be increased from 78 to over 100. The station will have a budget of $3.5 million. As many as 60 employees of the Ottawa institutes will move to Petawawa. About 50-70 employees both Ottawa and Petawawa will, however, still have to be laid off to achieve the required budget reductions.
If one talks to researchers in the forest industry and asks them when we are going to get results or when they will know what they have accomplished, those researchers will probably say that it may be up to 100 years before the work which they started today will have a known result, in a positive or negative way, for the forest industry. The work which was done at Petawawa, however, and which has been done there for over 60 years, is to be cut back. This means that many of the projects which were started ten to 50 years ago have not yet been brought to a conclusion. The results are not known. Therefore, any cutback in the staff of that research station will result in the frustration of up to 60 years of work on certain projects.
That is not the worst of it. We in our society today are making use of our forests in a way which has never been done before. We are now demanding of our forest soil that it produce a crop on a regular, annual basis. The soil has never had to do that before. If the budworms were to remove an area of coniferous forest from the land, it was of no particular
January 24, 1979

consequence at one time; but if the budworm was to remove an area of forest today, then there would be no jobs tomorrow.
We then come to the problem of how to control our forest industry and its regeneration, what research do we have to direct us as to what trees should be planted and where, according to our reforestation program, which is so necessary to the continuing crop structure required for employment in Canada north and east of the St. Lawrence. Most of that forest is being cropped to the limit of its productive capacity. We must have that research. Therefore, any cutback in that area is detrimental to the long-term, best interests of the industry. It is necessary to know what will grow best on what soil, for example, in New Brunswick, in eastern Quebec and in Nova Scotia.
The government of Nova Scotia undertook a study in a certain area of that province whereby they analysed the soil required for the trees. That study recommended what trees should be grown in what particular region of the province, outlined the number of cords or cubic feet of wood that could be grown per acre in each region, and which regions were not worthy of reforestation or even of consideration in a remunerative way to the forest industry.
This is the kind of work which was being done in Petawawa. This cutback, however, is taking place in spite of the fact that a news release has come out from the Department of the Environment headed, "Lost in the Woods, a Circular Dilemma". It asks why it is that Canada's share of world export markets for forest products has decreased form 31 per cent to 19 per cent in the last 20 years, while the U.S. share has increased from less than 9 per cent to more than 12 per cent. It seems we are going in the opposite direction with a smaller population and with more wood. The news release also asks why the general productivity in the wood products industry in Canada is 15 per cent less than in the U.S., and why it is that Canada with a forest industry that provides direct and indirect employment for nearly one million people, and that contributes almost one-fifth of the nation's exports, finds itself with serious problems emerging with regard to economic supplies of timber. Another pertinent question it asks is why it is that competing products are making inroads into traditional wood markets despite the relatively low energy requirement to process trees into products and despite the potential for industrial self-sufficiency in energy through residue utilization.
The news release goes on to ask why it is that Denmark, a country nearly devoid of timber, uses more wood in public and industrial buildings than we do in Canada. Why is it that building code developments for wood systems lag behind those for alternative materials? It further asks why it is that federally funded research and development at forest product laboratories is about $14 million in the United States and only $7 million in Canada.
All these questions are being asked in light of the fact that we are now cutting back on research in forestry and putting forestry into a secondary position in a department coupled
Government Organization
with environment. These questions are coming from Environment Canada, Mr. Speaker. I could go on to cite a multitude of such questions but I should like to skip ahead to the end of this news release which states:
All of this in spite of the fact that... Hon. Judd Buchanan, Minister of State for Science and Technology announced in parliament in June an ambitious program leading to a national goal to increase R&D in Canada from its present 0.92 per cent (less than half that of Germany, Netherlands, France or U.S.) of gross domestic product to 1.5 per cent by 1983.
Hon. Len Marchand, Minister of State for the Environment, and minister responsible for the Canadian Forestry Service, pledged in a Vancouver speech before the Canadian Institute of Forestry last December:
"I want to assure you now that I have no intention of downplaying the role of the Canadian Forestry Service. If economic restraints make further cuts in my department necessary, I intend to make sure that the Canadian Forestry Service does not suffer. I want to see its role enhanced, in recognition of the high priority I place on the Canadian forest resources."
I should now like to read a portion of a letter written to me by the Public Service Alliance of Canada relating to Petawawa. The relevant portion is as follows:
However, the government still insists on the same $1.5 million cut and the same 70 to 80 people lay-off. With our friends in the Canadian Forestry Service, we now continue our fight to save the government forest research. We hope all our political friends will take up this fight in the House of Commons.
Perhaps that is one of the presentations which were made to the minister and to which he referred.
One of the reasons why an element of the Petawawa operation was saved may have been a telex sent to the Prime Minister by Dean V. J. Nordin, president of the Association of University Forestry Schools of Canada, on September 18, 1978, which reads as follows:
On behalf of all schools of forestry in Canada at the universities of B.C., Alberta, Lakehead, Toronto, Laval, and New Brunswick, I view with deep concern the catastrophic implications for Canadian forestry that will result from reductions announced recently by the federal government. The heads of forestry schools met with the honourable Len Marchand last June 21 and the minister said that he would resist any further damaging reductions to an already depleted and demoralized Canadian forestry service. Unless these new reductions are reviewed and changed there will be enormous and irreparable injury to Canadian forestry. Supporting details follow by letter.
The letter at great length lays clearly on the line to the Prime Minister what the consequences of the reduction will be. Each of the three departments of research which are now located in Petawawa has been effectively emasculated; each of the three research departments has had reductions in personnel and is no longer as effective or as productive as it would otherwise have been. Valuable research personnel have been irretrievably lost.


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


Mr. Hugh A. Anderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take a few minutes to participate in this bill on government organization. I should like to comment on some statements made yesterday, first of all by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who spoke rather in motherhood terms of his support for the gillnetters

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
and trailers of British Columbia. He pointed to a problem brought up recently when the regional office of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment announced that the 150 fathom fishing by the gillnetters in the herring season would be reduced to 50 fathom one net, rather than two nets. The hon. member did not say whether he was in favour of one net or two nets but merely said this was proof that the government was attacking small businessmen. This is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. The only reason I bring it up is to show the difference between responsible representation and nonresponsible representation. Motherhood phrases do very little to assist fishermen faced with a problem.
I should like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) (Mrs. Campagnolo), who is from Skeena, the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) and I met with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) when this matter was brought to our attention. We pointed out that changes in regulations regarding the herring catch several weeks before the season was to start was very unfair regardless of whether the 50 fathom net is more desirable from a conservation point of view. Before the season begins the gillnetters have purchased their equipment and nets on the basis of existing regulations.
We also pointed out that by reducing the number of nets from two to one, approximately 1,000 people in the fishing industry in British Columbia would be laid off and that, of course, is not desirable. We asked the minister to have discussions on this subject with the fishermen concerned before the regulations were brought in.
I am pleased to report, Mr. Speaker, that today the minister informed us that the director general of the regional office in Vancouver will call a press conference at two o'clock this afternoon regarding the gillnetters. I am sure the recommendations made by the members from British Columbia on this side of the House to the effect that there should be a one-year period for discussion will be taken into account. Certainly not enough time is being allowed to make decisions just before the herring season begins. I understand the minister has accepted the recommendation and I trust a solution to the problem will be found.
Approximately one year ago there was a debate in this House on the question of forming a separate ministry of fisheries. Shortly after that the minister was able to announce that a ministry of fisheries and the oceans would be established. That has a nice ring to it, Mr. Speaker. This finally takes into account the fact that we in Canada have expanded our coastline and that the amount of territory we govern is literally hundreds of thousands of miles with the introduction of the 200-mile limit which was brought in by a Liberal government and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment.
It gives me some concern, Mr. Speaker, after having established the 200-mile economic zone, which we all agree will benefit the people of Canada, especially in the maritimes and along the west coast-


Mr. McGrath:: And Newfoundland.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -to hear that the official opposition is now apparently attempting to balkanize the fishing industry in Canada by turning over jurisdiction which they have supported and increasing the role of the Ministry of Fisheries. They now say that if elected they would take power away from the Ministry of Fisheries and distribute it among the provinces concerned. Instead of talking platitudes about what we have done right or wrong, I would like someone from the opposition to state in this House whether they wish to balkanize the fishing industry in Canada and establish the same sort of regime as that established in the United States of America which has experienced disastrous results. Those of you who have followed the course of fishery policy in the United States I am sure are aware that states have jurisdiction out to 12 miles, the federal government has jurisdiction from the 12-mile limit to 200 miles. But there is a third area of legislation, that of regional councils.
We talk about a fishing war with the United States. There is no doubt in my mind that we got into the situation because the United States, through its three arms of jurisdiction, could not make up its mind as to what it wanted. Signing an agreement with the United States at the present time is very chancy business due to the fact that we are dealing basically with three separate levels of government.
Having said that, I am amazed to learn that apparently a plank of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, if they are put into power, is to turn over the duties of the Minister of Fisheries to the premiers of the provinces in the Atlantic Region so they could have their own fish war. As I said, they would balkanize the fishing industry and I am sure we would have exactly the same results as those that have occurred in the United States, namely a lack of central power to make decisions on behalf of fishermen in general rather than having the proposal which has come forward, and that we would have our own wars among the provinces. I hope that someone from the official opposition will bring up that subject today because I think it is very important. There is no point establishing a fisheries portfolio giving the minister broad powers if at the same time the Conservative party wishes to disband it as soon as they are elected.
There is no question in mind, Mr. Speaker, that since 1974 a revolution has occurred regarding the fisheries industry of Canada. Many of us will recall that prior to the 1974 election a meeting was held in Caracas, Venezuela, which was really the forerunner of the Law of the Sea process that has allowed us to go forward to 1978, when many of the coastal states have achieved sovereignty over the waters adjacent to them through the 200-mile economic zone.
Fishermen from British Columbia have asked me why we had not gone into massive hatchery programs prior to the proclamation of the 200-mile economic zone. They have asked why the government has been slow to meet the needs of fishermen in British Columbia. Let us make it very clear in the House that it would have been very foolish, before we had
January 24, 1979

obtained sovereignty over our coastal waters, to have spent hundreds of millions of dollars for the benefit of distant water fishing fleets to harvest a resource that is costing Canada literally millions of dollars. It would have been utter foolishness to have money spent by the people of Canada for the benefit of distant water fishing fleets.
I believe very strongly that the policy that has been carried out by this minister has been correct, first of all establishing sovereignty over coastal waters and ensuring that money spent by the people of Canada for the enhancement of fish stocks will benefit the people of Canada rather than other nations with distant water fishing fleets. In that regard I totally agree with the minister.
Yesterday the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) made reference to a statement apparently originating from the Fisheries Council of Canada to the effect that the minister should resign his portfolio. However, the hon. member for South Shore did not mention that while some leaders of the fishing industry demanded the removal of the minister last fall, Richard Cashin, president of the Newfoundland Fishermen's Union, sent a protest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If I may quote from that protest, it reads:
Romeo LeBlanc has established himself in the eyes of fishermen of Newfoundland and I believe all over eastern Canada as no other fishery minister has probably since confederation.
There are many important policy areas where LeBlanc is moving in the right direction and this is a critical period for fishermen. Sincerely hope you will see fit to keep him in fishery.
I would like to pose a question. When was the last time, Mr. Speaker, that you heard of a labour leader springing to the defence of a Liberal cabinet leader? It does not happen very often. As I said, a revolution has occurred in Canada since the 1974 meeting of the Law of the Sea in Caracas, Venezuela.
I believe we have done a very poor job of giving credit for that revolution to the members of the Canadian delegation who so ably represented us in Geneva, New York and Caracas. 1 am referring to people such as Allan Beesley, head of the Canadian delegation, Len Legault, Dr. Crosby and Dr. Needier, who recently retired. I say this because we as politicians like to take credit for things that are done on behalf of the Government of Canada, but sometimes we do not realize the importance of people like Allan Beesley and Dr. Needier. Anyone who has paid close attention to the Law of the Sea Conference realizes that Canada has played a role in that conference disproportionate to our population and to the power we have as an international force. It goes without saying that Canada has been the glue that has held the Law of the Sea Conference together and many of the proposals that are coming forward regarding the oceans and deep seabed mining are proposals which have been brought forward by the Government of Canada through its very able representatives.
I would like to use these few minutes to state publicly that the Canadian people owe a great deal to these negotiators. In addition to that I would like to say that the Law of the Sea Conference owes a great deal to Canada. It is my sincere opinion that this particular conference would have disbanded years ago if there had not been someone who could have talked
Government Organization
to all parties involved and attempted to find a common ground to continue negotiations.
We talk about the structure of setting up a department of fisheries and the oceans. In a similar debate a year ago I said that we should have a separate department recognizing the fact that the Department of Fisheries, along with its minister, is an area with great potential growth. I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries is on occasion frustrated because he knows that there is probably greater potential growth in his department than in any other area. He has one of the lowest budgets. I am sure that if some of us had our way we would have greater input of money into the Department of Fisheries, perhaps coming from some of the non-productive departments to what is a growth department.
1 do not believe there is any doubt either in the minister's mind or in my mind that, as we use land masses to their full potential in providing food for an ever increasing world population, at some point in the future the world will have to turn to the oceans as a source of nourishment. If one is mercenary, one would have to say that those engaged in the fishing industry and related aquaculture industries in Canada have the greatest potential for growth, if only because distant foreign fishing fleets can no longer supply their people with fish they normally catch off the coasts of Canada, the United States and South America.
We in western Canada are seeing the results of the 200-mile economic zone. Take, for example, the herring industry, one in which few people wanted to participate until a few years ago because they could not earn enough money to make it worth while. Most of the catch was ground up for fertilizer or made into cat and dog food. It was used for every purpose except feeding people. There was no other market for it. Today, because of the 200-mile zone, the situation has changed. This year the herring roe fishery in British Columbia will be a $100 million industry. This sum will go into the pockets of fishermen, processors and others in the Pacific region, though a few years ago the commercial returns from this product were so negligible that no one talked about them. Where is the herring going? It is going to the Japanese who are no longer able to harvest this species in Canadian waters or other waters they have traditionally fished.
I certainly bear no malice toward Japan or any other country, but for the first time in the history of the fishing industry we have been able to establish sovereignty over waters which are adjacent to Canada, and as a result we are now seeing a breakthrough of tremendous importance. We shall be able not only to harvest but to manage these resources on a sustained yield basis. This will prove to be better for the countries purchasing fish from us because hitherto there had been a rape of the ocean's resources. It was like a piece of agricultural land that nobody owned and everyone could try to profit from. We now have under our control resource management programs which will benefit not only the people of Canada, fishermen in particular, but countries all over the

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
world which cannot grow sufficient food on their own land and which have to rely on the fisheries for sustenance. They will now have a constant supply available to them.
The breakthrough I am talking about extends not only to herring roe and salmon. For the first time we are seeing the development of new possibilities. In British Columbia, dogfish are the bane of commercial fishermen because they tear up the nets and are, in general, of no use to our fleet. Today, though, a market has been found for them in Europe and catching them is a profitable undertaking. This new market will provide our fishermen with additional income while ridding the sea of a species which is damaging to salmon stocks as well as to the nets of commercial operators.
Account should also be taken of the fact that, as a result of the negotiations now taking place with the United States, we are able to exploit groundfish for the benefit of our own fishermen whereas formerly the greatest benefit was allowed to go to the American groundfish producers in return for benefits received by our halibut fishermen. There are problems, of course, as there are in any organization, whether it be the Department of Fisheries or any other department of government, federal or provincial. For instance, we all know that the number of personnel engaged in fisheries patrol should be increased. I believe the minister would agree with this assertion and if further funds were available to him I am sure this could be one of his priorities.
The minister is also aware that the hatcheries being constructed in British Columbia at the present time and those which are yet to be constructed under our salmon enhancement program require a reservoir of experienced staff. These people will have to be engaged full time. Under our present system it is likely that only the hatchery manager and his assistant are full-time employees; the rest of the staff is engaged as casual labour. If we are to train future hatchery workers to replace those who retire as time goes on, we must ensure there is a pool of experienced staff to make sure that the program is utilized to best advantage. I hope the funds will be forthcoming to enable the minister to do some of these things which both he and I recognize as needing attention.
I suppose I should mention that under the present Minister of Fisheries we on the west coast are undertaking the most ambitious fisheries program since confederation. I would be remiss if I failed to congratulate the minister on his ability, in a time of restraint, to secure approval of his cabinet colleagues to a salmon enhancement program which over a five-year period will spend SI50 million on increasing salmon stocks in British Columbia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
_ 0


Hugh Alan Anderson: Perhaps what is not as well known is the fact that we are not embarking upon a five-year program per se, so that at the end of five years the Government of Canada will say: having now spent $150 million we are going out of the enhancement program. The minister has made it very clear that after an initial five-year period, which has already been extended to seven years, an evaluation will be carried out to

ascertain the value obtained for the money spent and to determine what enhancement had taken place during that period.
He has further undertaken that if this party continues to form the Government of Canada we would embark on a further ten-year program in addition to the original five extended to seven. If I am not mistaken, the minister said we would be spending in the neighbourhood of $30 million to $60 million over a ten-year period. This would make the salmon program in British Columbia the largest federal program initiated since confederation. That is a program of the present federal government and is certainly a credit to the Minister of Fisheries who, in our opinion, has done more for the province of British Columbia than any other minister since confederation.
It may seem an odd thing for a member from British Columbia to compliment a minister from New Brunswick; I suppose there is always a tendency for a minister representing a region which is adjacent to the Atlantic to give preference to his own area, especially when our west coast fishermen have, generally speaking, a higher income than fishermen on the east coast. The fact that the minister seized an opportunity to put his money where his mouth is and supported members from British Columbia in a huge program which could cost $500 million or $600 million over a 15-year program says a great deal about the impartiality of that minister.
When the eastern fishery gets its act together, I hope that the same minister will be able to announce an enhancement program for Atlantic salmon. That would benefit the people of the maritimes in the same way the enhancement program in British Columbia will benefit the fishermen and the people of British Columbia and ultimately the people of Canada. There is a tremendous challenge facing the new minister of fisheries and oceans. What has not been said enough is that there are very difficult days ahead.


Mr. Alexander:: Not when we take over.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I think we on the west coast are aware of that. I see that the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who led off the debate on behalf of the official opposition, is here.


Iona Campagnolo: A noted fisherman.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I understand that he is very interested in the Hamilton Harbour Commission and derives his fishery experience from that particular harbour. I think the hon. member was fishing yesterday for things other than what we are discussing. I am very sorry to hear that his health has not improved, and on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House I extend best wishes and trust that his health will improve in time for the next election. I think the hon. member will need the best health possible if he is to remain in this House.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Your days are numbered, sir.
January 24, 1979


Hugh Alan Anderson: I have tried to outline the importance of the proposed ministry of fisheries and oceans, the fact that the fishing industry will be one of the great growth areas in Canada over the next decade and the fact that we require a strong minister with strong powers in order to deal with many matters, including relations with the United States. I hope those hon. members opposite who have stated that, if elected, they would have these powers shorn of the minister and given to the provinces will reconsider, in light of the decision of the United States. I would be very pleased to hear comments from hon. members opposite on this subject because apparently only in the maritimes and very seldom here in Ottawa do we hear what they would do with respect to the powers of a federal minister of fisheries if the people of Canada were to elect them.
I must say that that prospect chokes my throat. However, if a catastrophe of that kind should occur, I should certainly have liked to have heard their proposals stated in the House of Commons prior to the election. They should not be stated on friendly maritime ground, but here. We should be told whether the Conservative party would decentralize fisheries authority to the extent indicated by press reports from the maritimes. I think it is very important, when we are talking about the unity of the country, to hear whether the official opposition intends to speak for the people of Canada or for the provinces of Canada.
The leader of our party-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Who has destroyed the country.


Hugh Alan Anderson: -nas made it abundantly clear that he would not be disposed to speaking for the provinces because he represents the people of Canada.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The man is a menace.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) would not intentionally mislead this House.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Of course not.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: He might well do that due to lack of knowledge or stupidity, but I would not accuse him of doing it intentionally. He has charged that members of the official opposition would balkanize the Department of Fisheries-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I fail to recognize a point of order in the hon. member's remarks. Perhaps the hon. member wants to refuse some remarks made by a previous speaker, and perhaps that opportunity should be given to him when he is recognized or has the floor, but I fail to recognize a point of order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I am rising under Standing Order 37, which gives me the right, if I am misquoted or misunderstood, to explain my position. Having been asked by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni to define our position, I would like to do that now under the provisions of Standing Order 37.
Government Organization
The hon. member stated that we would balkanize the fishing industry and put the responsibilities of the department into the hands of the provinces. At no time did I as my party's spokesman on fisheries matters ever make that statement, nor did any members of my party put that position on the record.
So that the hon. member will know and not misquote us, we firmly believe that responsibility for the regulation of fisheries is vested in the federal minister of fisheries. We have never said otherwise, and I hope that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will apologize to the House or correct his statement so that he is not on record as misleading the House.


Hugh Alan Anderson: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, 1 certainly would not want to mislead this House. I was referring to comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he was in the maritimes recently. He indicated that he believed very strongly that the resources of the provinces should be managed by the provinces. If, as the hon. member says, I have misled the House, it was an unintentional mistake. My information is that the provincial governments- and if the hon. member wants me to, I can quote the provincial governments-have indicated very strongly that they consider the fisheries to be provincial resources and that the Leader of the Opposition has said that those resources should be in provincial hands. If I am mistaken, I apologize to the House.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Then sit down.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: We accept your apology.


Hugh Alan Anderson: I am not quoting from a text used by the Leader of the Opposition; I am merely referring to comments he made. If I am taking them out of context, I certainly apologize to the official opposition.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are a gentleman, and we accept your apology.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, after being present at the adjournment of this session for the Christmas holidays when everything was so urgent that the government had threatened to make us sit day and night and, having failed, had to impose closure to have the House pass quickly some bills which should have been introduced at the beginning of the session but which for lack of planification are always deferred to the last days before an adjournment or a prorogation, I wish to draw the attention of the House on that unfair procedure, but this government is not alone because all other previous governments have done the same thing, a proof that the status quo is always acceptable in this parliament.
I do not know whether the government considers a session as a political race to be won and feels that it has to hide its cards, keeping some surprises till the end, or whether it is so devoid of imagination at the beginning of a session that it is unable to introduce any specific basic issue which would enable the House to launch serious and productive debates, but it is

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
always the same thing. The first bill with which we are dealing today is an indisputable proof of that never-ceasing repetition of the procedure used in previous years.
Whoever reads Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, gets the impression that the officials responsible for drafting this bill have not yet recovered from the lethargy of the festive season. In fact, for the past few years and especially last summer, when there were strong rumours of election, the present government intended to establish a department of fisheries separate from the department of environment. Finally, today, although it is a bit late since it is about to go to the people, the government introduces this bill as the first and main subject for debate. Some would say that we are nearing election time. Such a legislation is certainly a sign that we shall have an election within the next few months, as surely as a cloudy sky announces a rainfall.
Which serves to confirm what we the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada have always claimed, namely that the old parties always administer the country with an eye on the electorate, to gain votes so to speak, without giving much consideration to the nation's welfare. To make a long story short, why did the government not keep the name of the fisheries department and simply add the name of oceans, since this is particularly the same bill amended by the same minister, perhaps with a new dressing? For the public servants, of course, it is a question of doing something new, of hiring more people and of getting a larger budget.
Mr. Speaker, even though the present government would have us believe that the numerous subjects dealt with in Bill C-35 amount only to a bunch of administrative details, because that is its intention in introducing that package deal, I would like to try to clarify some very important points which are covered in that bill concerning areas such as fisheries, environment, research and development, and changes in electoral constituencies. So, for the benefit of the public, I will try to make clear what the civil servants have taken so much time to make obscure.
First of all, I would like to remind hon. members that the establishment of the department of fisheries and oceans as a separate entity from the Department of Environment is an electoral promise which goes back more than four years. If we consider the whole question of the development of our underwater natural resources as well as the question of the extension of our territorial limit to 200 miles from our coasts, I think that the new department of fisheries and oceans will have a very important role to play in the future, so much so that its establishment, its duties and responsibilities should have come under a separate bill instead of being just a part of a pre-election omnibus package which is introduced and passed with great pressure to the prejudice of all Canadians. From the

point of view of the procedure, Mr. Speaker, this bill is abominable if we consider that part I deals with the establishment of the new department of fisheries and oceans and that it is only at the very end of the bill, more precisely in part IX, after having heard about the public service, the electoral legislation, research councils and parliamentary secretaries, that at last we can learn how that new department is going to be financed. There are two important changes in part II of the bill. First the fisheries and oceans research advisory council is substituted for the fisheries research board.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in addition to changing the name of this agency to make it fit with the department's new name, the government took pains to include the word "advisory" which was not there before. The second significant change is the increase in the number of members of the council from 18 to 24. The members are recruited in the public service, in universities and teaching establishments, in industries and among the general public. All this is very nice, but what good will it do to pay civil servants to draft bills and to hire more members for a council which the government pointedly calls "advisory", meaning that its only function will be to advise the minister?
For almost two years now agencies like the Canadian Association of University Teachers and the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies have been constantly trying to explain to this government that such advisory bodies should become executive agencies with their own powers and that they should not depend only on inefficient ministers or general administrators of the same type. The public also requested larger representation of the Canadian scientific community on those advisory bodies, and what is the government bringing us today? It announces an increase in the membership of the new advisory body.
But what will be the proportion of members coming from universities, industry and the public service? We still do not know. I refer hon. members on the government side to the debates of March 7, April 17 and December 1, 1978, when hon. members of our party made a clear description of the lamentable condition of research and development in Canada. What solution is proposed? More members coming from we do not know where to sit on a board which has no executive power.
In the third part, it is a good thing the government has at long last recognized that the question of the environment calls for a separate department and established such a department as an autonomous body in Part III of Bill C-35. However, we of the Social Credit Party of Canada believe the powers and functions attributed to the Department of the Environment in the bill before the House are very limited and in fact too limited. In fact, in subclause 6(c) the minister is depicted as an adviser to the heads of various departments and other agen-
January 24, 1979

cies. Would it not have been better to establish a code for the evaluation of negative goods based on abundant data relating to the pollution of the environment which we have in hand and to give the Minister of the Environment the responsibility to apply this code? When will this government stop talking and start acting?
It is high time our country adopts such a code and applies it to all commercial and industrial development rather than hoping thaf toothless tigers will protect our environment. Among the duties attributed to the Minister of the Environment is that of providing to Canadians environmental information in the public interest. In this manner I think it would be beneficial to innovate and provide such information to the people in order to encourage creative discussions which will lead to the adoption of serious policies by the government. At present, the government is passing environmental laws and informing the public post facto. Once all laws are passed, the public is informed, rather than being consulted beforehand. That is a negative way of doing things, Mr. Speaker. It would be much more profitable, I think, to use this power of public information to initiate a public debate and thus achieve a greater input from citizens regarding this crucial question of preservation and the environment.
Mr. Speaker, I will not comment on part IV as I prefer to concentrate on part V. This part of the bill abolishes the office of the representation commissioner and transfers its responsibilities to the Chief Electoral Officer. This is a very important proposal, Mr. Speaker. It is a first step toward solving the problems we had to face and the injustice some of us have suffered concerning electoral boundaries readjustments. In this respect, Mr. Speaker, I wish to remind the House that the citizens of the Abitibi riding will have to suffer the consequences of the irresponsible action of that famous commissioner of whom we will soon be rid if this bill is passed.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that because of his special responsibilities the Chief Electoral Officer is closer than anyone to reality and the most able to identify problems concerning boundaries readjustments as he receives direct representations from many different sources. They are made by representatives of political parties in Ottawa as well as by returning officers and the candidates of political parties in various ridings. Then he is the most able to have an over-all view of the situation.
However we do not like much the famous provincial commissions whose members are appointed in a very subjective and partisan way by the Secretary of State who ha? now the title of minister. So, Mr. Speaker, if the government really wishes to deal with those problems it is urgent to review the appointment procedure of provincial commissioners and then to present a complete and serious bill on that subject alone and not an omnibus bill like this one.
Government Organization
Mr. Speaker, I found advisable to put together parts VI and IX of the legislation, under which the Medical Research Council, the National Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council no longer need the minister's approval for the appointing, the classifying and the salary determination of their staff.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely wonder what useful purpose the Department of Science and Technology will serve once the bill is enacted. Because how can the minister, a duly elected representative, answer for and explain before this House the acts and decisions of those four bodies, if those bodies can do whatever they like with public funds without the minister being informed? I perfectly realize the delays in getting the minister's approval for each and every decision taken by those councils, but I feel it is the latter's responsibility to ensure proper operation and some way or other to answer before parliament for the actions of such bodies as are normally his responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely feel this government are experts at paradox. On the one hand they recently slashed the budgets of various research bodies in Canada, and on the other hand they now give them wider decision autonomy under the legislation before us. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what is the purpose of all this? If funding is cut, if they are deprived of any possibility of monetary improvement, even this new freedom of decision will not lead very far and we will not solve our research centres' problems.
Mr. Speaker, I am not making this up. You have only to read the reports on research published recently in the newspaper La Presse. I believe it was on January 22, 23 and 24, 1979.
Then you will know clearly what I am talking about.
I close my remarks by dealing with part X. To my mind, that part of the bill which deals with parliamentary secretaries is just like them: quite confused. Indeed, in the French version the main difference between the act as it stands now and the bill is that the word "occupant" is being replaced by the word "exerjant"; on the other hand, the English version gives the change another twist that does not reflect the substitution of "exerjant" for "occupant" by giving corresponding words, that is "hold office". We note that the words "at any one time" now in the act no longer appear in the bill. What does it all mean, Mr. Speaker?
I believe we will have time in any case to think it over and come up with an answer before the next election. And in just a few seconds-I see you are about to rise-I would like to say that I am very anxious to see the different interpretations that will come out of the standing committee of the House. So we will be looking forward to that famous report of the committee to re-examine the problem and pass a final judgment on this Bill C-35.

January 24, 1979
Government Organization


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the substance of my remarks, it seems I should put to rest a canard which is receiving some credit in speeches to the effect that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised a separate department of fisheries. I have a short excerpt from the Digby Courier of July 4, 1974 from which I should like to quote. It states:
the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau said in Digby that "he now prefers a full-time Minister of Fisheries".
A little over a month later in fact there was assigned a full-time minister responsible for fisheries, so that promise was fulfilled.
Some hon. members have attributed to me qualities which I do not have. I must say I really am not in competition to see who is the best minister of fisheries. I think Canada has been fortunate in having a long tradition of good ministers of fisheries. I say this without even choosing between sides in this House because I know some of the things that were done by representatives of the other party. I might say that my immediate predecessor, the hon. Jack Davis, made some extremely difficult and courageous decisions affecting Atlantic fisheries, and I take away nothing at all from what he has done.
One of the most pleasant compliments I have ever been paid was in being told that I was somewhat akin to the hon. James Sinclair, who I think was considered to be one of the great ministers of fisheries in this country.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in support of Bill C-35, particularly that part of the bill dealing with the reorganization of the legislative arm of the government by creating a separate department of fisheries and oceans. I think the legislative paper is both clear and straightforward. Based on comments made by members of all parties in this House over a year, it is a progressive measure that seems satisfactory to everyone. Bill C-35 proposes to create a department to be called the department of fisheries and oceans. The duties, powers and functions of the department will include all matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction, not by law assigned to any other department, or agency of the Government of Canada, relating to (1) sea coast and inland fisheries, (2) fishing and recreational harbours, (3) hydrography and marine sciences.

-and:
(b) such other matters over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction relating to oceans as are by law assigned to the minister.
Part II of the bill provides for amendment or repeal of certain sections of the Fisheries Research Board Act to allow the replacement of the old Fisheries Research Board with a new fisheries and oceans research advisory council. This council will advise and report directly to the minister. The majority of its members would normally be scientists, but to answer right away hon. members of the New Democratic Party

mainly, that fishermen should be represented, I can assure them they will be. In fact, the word "industry" in my understanding would include both fishermen and, of course, processors.
The council will then advise the minister in matters relating to fisheries research and the marine sciences, including technological developments in those fields, the scope and adequacy of science policies and programs of the department of fisheries and oceans, having regard to the duties and functions of that department, the science policy and international obligations of the Government of Canada, and the co-ordination of research and development programs in the field of fisheries research and the marine sciences.
In a nutshell, the establishment by this bill of the new department and council will provide a clearcut administrative and policy framework for carrying out the federal government's constitutional mandate for "seacoast and inland fisheries", including our fisheries management and ocean science responsibilities, and administration of the legislation listed in schedule I of the bill.
There are other related, consequential amendments which are included in schedule II to ensure that the mandate of the minister of fisheries and oceans is appropriately recognized in other legislation.
I feel it would be worth while at this time to cast a backward glance at events of the past decade to examine why this government took the step it did in creating a federal department of the environment in 1971, and decided to include in it the then department of fisheries and forestry. The overriding reason at that time for the creation of an environment department was the absence of a national focal point for environmental concerns and the lack of a strong federal organization to co-ordinate and lead the fight against encroaching pollution of the environment.
One of the events that occurred at that time was the discovery of mercury contamination in the Great Lakes and elsewhere which provided a dramatic example of the need for swift and effective action by the senior government. It should be borne in mind that at that time no provincial government has an environmental department to cope adequately with the situations which were, to many people's surprise, arising. Even worse, there was very little environmental legislation on the books that could be used to stop or roll back pollution except for the Fisheries Act. The Fathers of Confederation in their wisdom had included anti-pollution provisions in the Fisheries Act when it was passed into law more than a century ago, and those provisions, beefed up by stiffening the penalties for polluting any water where there was fish life, were used very effectively in the war against pollution in the early 1970s.
Among our renewable natural resources the fisheries, of course, stood to lose the most from the effects of pollution of our lakes, rivers and oceans. The Fisheries Act served as an invaluable stop-gap until other environmental protection legislation could be put into place, and until provincial governments were able to organize their own environmental departments and join the attack at the provincial level.
January 24, 1979

In the mid-1970s came the realization that bold and decisive action was needed to avert disaster in fisheries, particularly the Atlantic groundfish industry which was verging on bankruptcy. This situation had arisen largely as a result of excessive foreign fishing.
The federal government rose to the challenge and made fisheries rehabilitation a number one priority. Millions of dollars by way of temporary assistance programs were made available to the industry. Looking beyond these emergency short-term measures, an over-all management policy was formulated for Canada's commercial fisheries, a document published in May, 1976, which I understand was never tabled in this House. With the permission of the House, I would like to table it in both official languages at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the minister consent to table the document to which he has referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Roméo LeBlanc: The key to rational management of the offshore fisheries resource was, of course, extended jurisdiction. Canada unilaterally introduced a 200-mile fishing zone on its east and west coasts on January 1, 1977. Here 1 should like to pay homage to my own colleages in cabinet, particularly the former secretary of state for external affairs, the present government House leader, and his successor, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and distinguished representative of Newfoundland. This declaration of the 200-mile zone was without doubt a milestone in Canada's fishing history, and I believe marked the turning point in the furtunes of the industry.
Now, with effective management control over most of the offshore fishing grounds, backed by successfully negotiated bilateral agreements with countries that traditionally fished off our coasts, a new era of prosperity looms on the horizon for Canada's hard-pressed fishing communities. Significantly, in the year 1977 the total market value of Canada's fisheries topped the $1 billion mark. Fisheries is getting to be big business, and it is also abundantly clear that the fisheries department with its many added responsibilities should re-emerge as a separate entity.
OO)
Thus it was that in the fall of 1977 the Prime Minister announced the government's intention to set up a new department to look after Canada's fisheries. Wheels were set in motion to accomplish this and the necessary legislation was placed before the House last June. Unfortunately, time ran out on us and the bill died on the order paper. In any case, if anyone should be wondering, I might add at this point that we have not been sitting around twiddling our thumbs waiting for the passage of the bill. Anticipating the split in the department, my officials have been busily occupied with sorting out the administrative arrangements and the transfer of responsibilities which such an action would involve.
Government Organization
Much of the machinery necessary for fisheries to function as a separate department is now in place. With the approval of this House and the Senate, the new department will be known as the department of fisheries and oceans. An associate deputy minister has already been appointed-he is now well settled in his job-and a senior management structure in the new department has been developed. Of course, the associate deputy minister would become the new deputy minister with the passage of the legislation.
There are now four assistant deputy ministers: one responsible for the central, inland and western fisheries, one for the eastern fishery, one for the ocean and aquatic sciences, and a new assistant deputy minister concentrating on marketing and developmental aspects. I might add that the officials of both sectors, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries, worked well together, and I am sure are ready to continue doing so because there will always be a close relationship between those who are involved in the protection of the environment and those who are working in fisheries.
The name "fisheries and oceans" was chosen deliberately to indicate that the new department's make-up includes a marine science component. This is not something that has been tacked on as an afterthought. The fisheries are part of the ocean's eco-system, and in order to manage them effectively the input of many disciplines of marine science is absolutely essential.
Perhaps I could best define this department by pointing out the objectives of the ocean and aquatic sciences sector. Firstly, it is to conduct on a national basis research into physical, chemical and biological oceanography to gain a better understanding of the marine and fresh water environments.
Secondly, it is to support through this program the management of marine and fresh water resources, the enhancement and protection of marine and fresh water environmental quality, and the safe, orderly and efficient conduct of shipping in Canadian waters and those areas of the ocean of direct interest to Canada.
A third objective of OAS is to contribute to national capability in fisheries and marine science through the development and transfer of ocean technology. It has also been given the provision of direct financial aid to qualified university research projects through the subvention program, and the implementation of a national fisheries and marine scientific information and publications policy.
Last but by no means the least of the OAS functions is to ensure that adequate hydrographic data, charts and publications are available as and when needed to meet the needs of navigation in all Canadian waters. This is of direct benefit to commercial fishermen as well as to marine fishing in general, and to the ever increasing population of pleasure boaters in this country.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the ocean and aquatic sciences sector had its origin back in 1959 as part of the past fisheries research board of Canada, when it was known as the division of oceanographic research. At that time it used the administrative and ship support arm of the Canadian hydro-

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
graphic service. Subsequently the group was attached to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and more recently became part of the fisheries and marine service within the environment department. Thus it may be claimed that OAS has turned full circle and is back where it started from.
The shaping of a new department has provided the government with an opportunity to take a good, hard look at fisheries needs as they currently exist throughout Canada and at what may be needed for the future. Efficient and economically sound management of the fisheries-whether salt water or fresh water-is obviously the basic concern of any fisheries department.
Fisheries management, however, entails a lot more than merely setting catch quotas and licensing fishermen. It requires science and research, a knowledge of what, where and when to fish, an understanding of the very complex factors which affect stock, health and abundance. It involves not only controlling how much fish is harvested, but also attempting to spread that fish throughout the year to keep processing plants fully occupied. It means devising methods to increase the natural or artificial production of fish, such as the multi-million dollar salmonid enhancement program now in top gear in British Columbia. It involves measures to protect and, where necessary, rehabilitate fisheries habitats-the streams, estuaries and other places where fish spawn and spend their early life. It means coming up with programs to protect the fisheries resource, and that includes combating the poaching of valuable species such as salmon and lobster.
Incidentally, with the help of this parliament, two amendments were put into the Fisheries Act which have been very helpful in the area of habitat protection and stricter or stronger measures against illegal fishing. The fishermen themselves are now discovering that the resource is also theirs to protect. In Prince Edward Island a very positive experiment was tried by the fishermen during the last season and on their own estimate the amount of poaching dropped substantially in the lobster fishery. Other fishermen groups, with this example in mind, are suggesting that they too should have a role in the protection of their own resource. I know that this problem is less serious in certain provinces, especially Newfoundland where the sacredness of the fishery is recognized very broadly.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, with the permission of the House, I might spend a few minutes speaking about the current fate of Canada's fisheries. Occasionally there are cries of outraged protest from the media or from politicians that Canada is not taking full advantage of our opportunities under the 200-mile limit. Sometimes these protests are accompanied by calls to cash in on this wonderful new bonanza by vastly expanding the fishing fleet. In both cases these protests are from people who have not taken the trouble to study the situation, or have chosen to ignore the facts for whatever reason.
Let us look at some of the facts. On the fishing grounds of British Columbia full-time fishermen earn stable, responsible and respectable incomes. Pacific salmon already are the most valuable fish in Canada. Our federal salmonid enchancement program with British Columbia's excellent co-operation will

double the number of salmon by the 1990s. In Pacific ground-fish we can eventually increase our catches four times. I have not mentioned it but the hon. member for Commox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) has mentioned the very lucrative herring roe fishery.
On the prairies the federal Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation continues to provide marketing stability. In the interior and on the coasts federal-provincial co-operation in the recreational fishing industry has increased markedly. On the Atlantic coast, despite strong conservation measures, fishermen's incomes have increased 50 per cent in recent years. From 1974 through to 1977 landings rose some 20 per cent and landed value rose over 50 per cent. Provisional figures for 1978 show landings are up another 13 per cent and value is up a healthy 37 per cent over 1977.
Besides the new dollars there is a new feeling of stability about the fishery. Those of us who read the economic review of the different provinces in the Globe and Mail business supplement were, I am sure, impressed of find that in most provinces fisheries was singled out as an area of development and an area of quite dramatic progress. Catches are more reliable and plant work is steadier and is stretching over more of the year. There is growth in fishermen's organizations. Fishermen have gained status in the community. No longer is the fishery the employer of last resort. The potential for job increases on the Atlantic coast is higher in processing than in fishing-20,000 or more new jobs is not unlikely.
By 1985 we could double our catch of Atlantic groundfish. But this is not only a function of more boats. Partly, bigger landings will come from bigger catch rates per boat. The estimated doubling of our groundfish catch depends also on our making use of species such as grenadier and hake that we now ignore.
Except in northern cod, it is hard to foresee fleet expansion for our traditional fisheries, either from growth in fish stocks or from displacement of foreign effort. As fish stocks increase, a fleet the size of our existing one can take much larger catches-and, in fact, our fleet was doing so ten years ago.
In 1977 we took 76 per cent of traditional groundfish and herring on the Atlantic coast, including waters both inside and outside the 200-mile limit. Of all finfish last year, including both the species our fishermen seek and those they ignore, and including fish both inside and outside the limit, and taking into account the rights of France in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, we caught about 60 per cent. The percentage is even higher off Nova Scotia.
Atlantic fish prices have never been so high. Atlantic landed value has risen from $224 million in 1976 to $280 million in 1977. The idea of massive fleet expansion for traditional species-and I want to be very clear on this-is a pipe dream. In the northern cod fishery and in underutilized species there could be expansion. But using underutilized species to expand our fleet and catch to their full potential depends on being able to sell what we catch. Until there is some dramatic break-
January 24, 1979

through in product or market development-and these are largely areas of responsibility of industry and the provinces-it is difficult to look quickly at the day when the foreign fishing fleet will have left Canadian shores.
To those who advocate a policy of removing all foreign fishing from the Canadian zone, I point out that this is a very short-term and short-sighted policy because it does not take into account two very important protections which we require, and these are the interest of Canada outside the 200-mile zone on the east coast-and Newfoundland is aware of this problem-and, of course, the fate of the Atlantic and Pacific salmon on the high seas. We need some negotiating power to protect our vital interest in this species.
I might also say that access to the Canadian zone can be discussed and negotiated with the full knowledge of all the segments of the industry. That access can be granted in exchange for other benefits such as markets which, of course, Canada should diversify because of our overdependency on the United States market.
Some hon. members have made comments to which I should like to refer briefly, with your permission, Mr. Speaker. On the matter of fleet expansion and freezer trawlers the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) forgot to underline that our existing fleet on the east coast could take at least 50 per cent more fish than it is taking. A factory freezer trawler could probably triple what our best trawlers now catch and some 90 times what the inshore longliner can catch. The implications respecting the over-all structure of the industry, and in particular the potential hazard posed to the livelihood of inshore and offshore fishermen, are obvious to me.
In the matter of freezer trawlers, of the six applications received in 1979, all are contingent upon access to traditional species which our present fleet is not only able to catch but where the catch rate could mean more fish for our fishermen. Those applications are contingent upon access to those traditional species and in many cases they require financial investment and involvement by foreign countries.
The hon. member has taken as his text a letter from the Fisheries Council of Canada. I think he and I separate clearly on this issue. I have made it clear that in the disposal of this common property resource, which is held in trust by the Government of Canada on behalf of the people of Canada, the first interest that has to be considered-and as long as I am the minister the first interest that is considered-is the interest of fishermen, starting with those who live in the communities that are the most isolated and whose mobility is the most limited. It was in the name of the small coastal communities and the small fishermen who could not compete with the foreign fishing fleets that we argued successfully with the rest of the world that Canada should manage the 200-mile zone.
If the hon. member wants to take the letter of the Fisheries Council as his text, I will take as my text a letter from the Fishermen's Union of Newfoundland dated April 5, 1978, which stated that their "basic principles are ... a go slow approach in the acquisition of factory ships." On this position our difference of views is quite clear.
Government Organization
The hon. member also talked about a long-term policy. I have tabled a document published in 1976 which, barring some adjustment required because of scientific readjustment, is, I think, perfectly valid today. This document established objectives and strategies for the development of Canada's fisheries. In resource management it covered important issues such as the extension of jurisdiction and effective management of the resource to ensure not only a sustainable yield but also the best social and economic use.
Regarding harvesting, the document advocates the need for systems of balanced access to ensure stability of the resource and improved incomes for fishermen. It also advocates improving fishing gear and practices and ensuring the viability of appropriate fleets depending on the nature of the fishery.
In processing, the document advocates quality, full utilization of the resource and arranging for the distribution of catches, particularly during glut periods, to plants in areas where catches are low in order to extend the working time of the plant.
In marketing, the document asked that we ensure competence to take advantage of dramatically changing international market patterns and that we improve our international competitive position through an improved co-ordination and consolidation of exporters.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the Fisheries Council has created a voluntary organization in the area of market co-ordination, but we are a far distance from our best competitors- and these are not socialist states but free enterprise types of government-who have consolidated their marketing efforts and do not see companies competing among themselves to the advantage of the buyers in markets as strategic as that of the United States.
The hon. member and I also separate on a number of other issues, Mr. Speaker. In the area of technological labs he made an impassioned plea for me to reconsider, but he also established his plea on some rather weak information. The actual number involved in the cutbacks is 30, of which 20 are in the scientific and technical categories, 14 in Halifax, six in Vancouver, the remainder being support staff. The programs affected are those related to packaging, storage of fisheries products, work on utilization of marine oils, and some study on paralytic shellfish poisoning and reproductive biochemistry. We have, however, retained a nucleus of expertise in all these areas. The reduced programs largely benefit the processing industry.
I am looking for the figures which would indicate that during 1978, for instance, the National Sea Company shares increased fivefold in value, from $4.33 to $21. The industry can now afford to do some of its own research and development work in this area, especially with some of the tax benefits that they can receive from the policies of this government. For proof of this, if we check the financial pages, as I have indicated, we will see that those companies which are accounting publicly are showing a fairly healthy picture. The depart-
2536

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
ment is still giving high priority to exploratory fishing, gear and vessel design demonstrations. There are also no cutbacks in projects relating to harvesting and processing of underutilized species and studies on preservation of fish quality and fish spoilage.
Our fisheries research program generally has been greatly expanded. There has been some misleading commentary made by many observers, including some of the media. Since the 200-mile limit came into force we have hired an additional 125 researchers. Research spending during the current year has gone up by $14 million. We expect to increase this further during the next fiscal year.
The hon. member for South Shore was wrong in his statement about the effects on an individual lobster fisherman. Studies on wet storage of lobster are continuing, as are studies on substitute baits for lobster traps. Studies on the relationship of offshore and inshore lobster which are not part of the technological labs are also unaffected by these reductions. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in that area as in other areas ministers have to try and stretch out every available man-year, or person-year as the expression now is, to cover the most urgent and pressing of his or her responsibilities.
I see that the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Mar-chand) has returned and he may want to deal with the forestry aspect. An hon. member indicates that he has already spoken, but I am sure the minister will want to put on the record the tangible way in which he has shown his interest in the forestry industry.


An hon. Member:: He has already done enough damage.


Roméo LeBlanc: 1 would like to hear from hon. members concerning this area. I remember clearly a meeting of resource ministers in Saskatoon when I was minister responsible for forestry. For a whole morning the federal government was berated for even thinking of a national forestry policy. During the afternoon ministers of forestry from different provinces claimed that the federal government should do more and more to discharge some of their own management responsibilities because they had not been allocated sufficient money in their own budgets to manage their own resource, which was the forestry.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni mentioned the problems of staff and problems of limitations on staff. I might say to him that I recognize the problem fully, especially as urban encroachment makes the protection of the fishery in areas like the Fraser Valley as well as in other areas of northern British Columbia more and more difficult as access to what were traditionally almost virgin areas of a province has become increasingly possible. There is no doubt that the protection of the resource has become more complex. I recognize the problem of hatcheries which the hon. member has indicated, and I do not like to see putting in under contract certain functions which I think should be rightly discharged by the department. On that point we have no disagreement.
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour) made what I thought was a very sensitive speech, and I

do not disagree with him when he recognized the social implications of fishery management. I might say that whenever I see a document describing rationalizing the fishery, I usually reach for my big black pen. However, I have a slight disagreement with the hon. member in his approach to licensing. I will not prejudge the issue because there is a study being undertaken now by an experienced and well known former employee of my department, Mr. Cliff Levelton, in the whole area of licensing. If there is any commonsense solution which can be found I am sure that Mr. Levelton and his working group will find it.
My disagreement with the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe comes from the point that we must accept the idea that there should be a group of fishermen who invest their lives in the fishery, not as a last resort and not as a means of desperate employment, but as a career, as something they want to do for themselves, for their children and for generations to come. That is why we will have to find a way, while recognizing that in some cases, especially where there is a short season of fishing, this can be a secondary source of income, to protect the basic interests of fishermen who have invested their lives and want their children to find a very rewarding future in that area.
I might say I was astonished to hear a few months ago a school principal in Prince Rupert, British Columbia, telling me that one of the problems in his high school was that of students dropping out to go into the fishery because it was so good. There are some positive aspects to this, but I am sure parents feel that there may also be some negative ones.
The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) talked about the vessel insurance program. I repeat what I have said, that no fishermen will be left unprotected. I have written to all fishermen's organizations and to provincial governments to ask them to join with us in looking at the possibility of fishermen's mutuals as an approach. I might also say that the fishermen's organization of Newfoundland have studied and are working on a project which might become a model for the rest of Canada or for those areas of Canada that might want to adopt that model. But I repeat what I have said, that no fishermen will be left unprotected by the closing out of the vessel insurance program.
The need for man-years and personnel in areas of urgency has forced me to look at the management of an insurance program as being of somewhat less a priority if we can find a way to protect the fishermen's interests and have an organization which they would direct.
The last point I want to make is one for which the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond expressed his support. I would like to hear where members of the official opposition stand on a fishermen's organization. If they are for it I hope they speak to their soul brothers in my province of New Brunswick where by law fishermen have obstacles in their way in being able to choose freely to which kind of organization they want to belong. I am not advocating a fishermen's union over a fishermen's co-operative or other
January 24, 1979

fishermen's organization; I am advocating the right of fishermen to choose the organization to which they want to belong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: I would hope that we may have cither some movement on the provincial side, or if we can overcome some of the difficulties-I am not a lawyer so I will walk most carefully when I say this-have signalled to us by the Supreme Court in the federal legislation, it might be possible to open the way for fishermen. One province has opened the way and the sky has not fallen. I believe fishermen have a right, like any other segment of the population, to protect their interest and negotiate their future.
I have indicated very clearly from the time when I made my first public speech in Halifax that the time when fishermen arrive at the wharf and are told that the price has dropped during the trip must come to an end. I can only say that I rejoice that it is increasingly coming to an end.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for not taking up all the time available to him; he has left some time in which to deal with his remarks and, hopefully, to make a positive contribution to this debate.
There are a few things I should like to get out of the way immediately. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson) made a serious charge, in my opinion, and was responsible for a gross misrepresentation which has been referred to by my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse) by means of a point of order. The only reason I am dignifying the hon. member's words by giving them repeated reference is that he was speaking not only as the member for Comox-Alberni but as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries.


An hon. Member:: No, consumer affairs.


James Aloysius McGrath: Well, he was speaking as a parliamentary secretary and presumably he was reflecting the views held by the government and by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc). Very often parliamentary secretaries are used by ministers to do their dirty work in this House and I suspect the parliamentary secretary, inadvertently, was being used by that old shrewdie, the Minister of Fisheries, to do a little bit of dirty work in the House that he did not want to do himself because it would jeopardize or affect his ongoing relationship with his provincial colleagues.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. minister on a point of order.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the last member with whom I would want to get into a hassle is the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), for whom I not only have a great deal of respect but personal affection. I really do not think he would want to impute any motives to
Government Organization
me. There is an obvious issue and I am glad to hear that the hon. member for South Shore took a clear position about federal jurisdiction. I hope he will speak to some of his soul brothers in at least two of the Atlantic provinces.


James Aloysius McGrath: I certainly would not wish to impute motives or put words in the minister's mouth. He has been known to express an opinion similar to that put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. But I want to make our position very clear-not that it has not already been made clear by my hon. friend from South Shore. The minister refers to some of our provincial colleagues. Presumably the reference is to the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland, a very distinguished member of the Newfoundland government and a former member of this House, who is doing a constructive job on behalf of the Newfoundland fisheries. I should like to tell the minister what the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland, the hon. Walter Carter, had to say on the question of jurisdiction in a speech he made on November 13, 1978. I put it on the record not because it represents the position of the minister of fisheries in Newfoundland, but because it accurately represents the position taken by this party. He said:
We believe that in terms of our respective fiscal responsibility for the provision of fishery and marine related facilities the provincial and federal roles are clearly defined under the BNA Act and while we do not intend to look for anything more than is ours by right we will expect to receive nothing else. We trust federal authorities will fulfil their responsibilities to the letter, and by so doing they will be joining us in the great revolution for the Newfoundland fishery.
That is a clear statement of the position of the province of Newfoundland and it happens to represent in the plainest terms the unambiguous position taken by this party. We are not suggesting, to use the term employed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that we should balkanize the fisheries and take away the jurisdiction of the federal government. What we are saying is that the federal government has a role to play as defined in the constitution, that the provinces have a role to play as defined in the constitution, and that the Fathers of Confederation, in their wisdom, intended that both authorities work together-that they should consult and co-operate, that they should not confront each other or compete with each other as seems to be the case today. Because when that happens it is the fishermen who suffer.
I am reminded of an old Newfoundland folk song which goes something like this:
I'se the boy that builds the boat,
And I'se the boy that sails her;
And I'se the boy that catches the fish And takes them home to Liza.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Sing it!


James Aloysius McGrath: I would be glad to sing it except that I would probably be out of order. The Minister of Fisheries for Canada claims to be the boy that builds the boat. The minister of fisheries for Newfoundland claims to be the boy that sails her. But the poor old fellow who takes the fish home to Liza doesn't know who the hell is responsible for the fisheries. He is confused, and Liza is confused, too. I hope, for the sake of Liza and whoever has to bring the fish home, that both the
80047-19*/$

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
federal Minister of Fisheries and his provincial colleagues, whether in Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Quebec or British Columbia, will realize we have an industry with fantastic potential and that co-operation will be required if this potential is to be maximized. I know the minister is capable of such co-operation. I know the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland is anxious to pursue a co-operative approach.
We are talking about an industry which is, today, a $1 billion industry. In my own province of Newfoundland, to which the fishery is of vital importance, the industry has a value of more than $100 million-430,957 metric tons of fish landed with a value of more than $100 million.
In these circumstances I have to confess I was somewhat disappointed at the speech given by the Minister of Fisheries. I had hoped to hear the minister give us an outline of his aspirations, of his plans for the future designed to ensure the orderly growth of the industry, realizing, of course, that the achievement of maximum growth along lines which would produce most benefit for our fishermen would require co-operation among all those concerned. I had hoped the minister would have told us how he intended to pursue these commendable and necessary objectives. He failed to do so. I trust that on another occasion he will make up for this serious shortcoming.
Perhaps the reason he did not do so had to do with the nature of the debate in which we are engaged. After all, we are not dealing with a fisheries bill. We are not dealing with a bill calling for the establishment of a new department of fisheries. We are dealing with an omnibus bill. I would be in order if I were to make a speech on a whole range of subjects. The bill deals not only with oceans and fisheries and with the new advisory board; it also deals with the Department of the Environment, Canadian Patents and Development Limited, the representation commissioner, the Medical Research Council, the National Research Council, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and parliamentary secretaries.
I make reference to the omnibus nature of the bill because we are as anxious as the minister to get the new department of fisheries and oceans on the road. We are anxious to get her launched, christened and out to sea; but then the government puts obstacles like this in our way. Forestry, environmental matters, the representation commissioner, elections, the Medical Research Council, research and development and all these things open up areas of very important debate. I am just concerned that the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), who I am sorry to say has never placed the question of fisheries in a very high priority, will perhaps take note of the fact that debate is not going quickly enough, is not going to his satisfaction and not fitting into his timetable, and say to his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment: "I am sorry, Romeo, but I have to withdraw that bill; we have to get on to something else". That would be very regrettable.

The government could have brought in a bill prior to the recess to set up a department of fisheries and oceans, and we would have passed it in a few days. We would have given it second reading in a few days because we would have wanted to use that opportunity to have a full-scale debate in this House on the very important subject of the fishing industry and the future of the fishery in Canada.
The fishing industry is vitally important to many of us, and such a debate would have given the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment an opportunity to make a clearcut policy statement and to open the debate with that kind of statement. We would have a chance to respond constructively, but instead the Deputy Prime Minister introduces a bill to amend the Government Organization Act to reorganize the Government of Canada, we have a response from my learned colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander), who in our party has responsibility for matters relating to the organization of the Government of Canada, we get a response from the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand), and all kinds of other responses. The result is that we have a very disjointed debate on the fishing industry, and that is regrettable. The bill might even be withdrawn, and the poor old Department of Fisheries would have to struggle on without having legal sanction for its very existence.
We do not question the right of the minister to proceed. Indeed, we want him to. But I know that the fact that the new department has not been given sanction by law has resulted in a morale problem. People in the Department of Fisheries are not exactly happy that the new department has not been officially established.
I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the very capable and dedicated men and women in the fisheries service of Canada, which is what we have at the present time, who will make up the nucleus and form the organization of the new department of fisheries and oceans. They have demonstrated their dedication time and time again, and they have certainly demonstrated their capabilities time and time again. I can speak of no better example than the people who work in the fishery service in my own province of Newfoundland, right from the director, Mr. Cowley, who was a school mate of mine and is one of the outstanding young public servants in Canada and certainly one of the most capable, to his entire staff. The minister nods his agreement that they are a tremendous organization. They are certainly a credit to the Government of Canada and a credit to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, who recognizes their capabilities and their dedication.
However, it is regrettable that their full potential has not really been harnessed by the government. That is because of something I referred to a few moments ago, the propensity of this government to downgrade the whole fishing industry. We are paying the price, and we have paid the price. I think of what has been done with the fisheries department since 1968 when this government came to power and, indeed, since 1963 when the government of the right honourable, late and great Lester Pearson came to power. The Department of Fisheries
January 24, 1979

was disestablished and became the department of fisheries and forestry, humourously called the "department of fish and chips".
Then we had the new Department of the Environment established under the direction of a former member of this House from British Columbia. The result of the establishment of the new Department of Fisheries and the Environment was a downgrading of the role of the fishery component at a time when we should have been planning for the day when we would be able to realize jurisdiction over the 200-mile limit. It was not a far-off dream in those days. We had been talking about it since 1958. We came close to getting an international agreement at the first Law of the Sea Conference I recall in 1958. We did extend our jurisdiction, to the credit of the government. One could say that the government practically had to be dragged into it by the scruff of its neck. We had to present petitions. We had to push. We did so because we knew that the minister was secretly supporting us, so we pushed his colleagues day after day in the House. We literally had to drag the government by the scruff of the neck into making that unilateral declaration, but it did, to its credit.
However, when we finally made the unilateral declaration of the 200-mile economic zone, we were caught short. We had not put in place the planning which would anticipate the realization of the 200-mile economic zone.
Let us consider the experience of our cousins to the south in the United States. They saw what was coming and prepared for it by increasing the surveillance and rescue capability of the U.S. coastguard. They ordered new ships, new aircraft and new facilities for their coastguard in preparation for the day when they would have jurisdiction over a 200-mile economic zone.


Roméo LeBlanc: Look at the document I tabled.


James Aloysius McGrath: I want to refer to that in a minute. The Americans embarked on a shipbuilding program to prepare for the 200-mile economic zone and for the day when there would be no foreign fishing activity whatsoever within their 200-mile economic zone. They even came to an agreement with Cuba, at a time when relations with Cuba were bad, with respect to the Gulf of Mexico. They did all these things, but what do we do? We are still haggling over the Georges Bank. The Cubans and the Americans got together over the Gulf of Mexico, but we couldn't come to an agreement on Georges Bank with our cousins and best friends. We finally came to it today, but at what price? At a serious cost in terms of our relationship with the Americans and in terms of our fishermen.
We have made no preparations for increased search and rescue capability and no preparations for renewing or increasing the size and operational scope of our coastguard service. We have made no preparation for a shipbuilding program to renew our trawler fleet, which does need renewal. I agree with my friend, the hon. member for South Shore, that we have to think in terms of renewing our trawler fleet.
Government Organization


Roméo LeBlanc: He was talking about freezer trawlers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Our trawler fleet is 25 years old. We need to renew our trawler fleet, which would provide badly needed jobs for our east coast, Great Lakes and west coast shipyards. American shipyards are going full tilt. Our shipyards have been going through some very difficult times. We could have a program, and we could have in place the suggestion of my colleague, the hon. member for South Shore, regarding federal financing of this fleet replacement program based on the model of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. That is an excellent suggestion. I suspect that if the government is given a new lease on life, which is doubtful, then even perhaps in the final days of the life of this government they might get around to implementing it. It is a good program, one whose time has come.
I can talk about new species development, the development of new markets, our relationship with the common market and the tariff protection of the common market against our fish, which speaks to the dependence of our industry on the east coast on the U.S. market. I can talk about new marketing techniques, taking full advantage of the Asian market. The Japanese are in a position to buy fish from us if we can get it to them frozen or chilled. They are prepared to pay the price for it. We are not actively pursuing that, or at least I am not aware of it if we are.
The People's Republic of China together with Japan will take all of the squid we can produce. The lowly squid holds great promise as a new species for bringing in new returns to our fishermen. I remember the time in Newfoundland when squid was used as a fertilizer; it was a nuisance. Now it is a much sought after food by Oriental people and by some European people. It is a matter of great regret to me to see year after year thousands and thousands of pounds of squid rotting on beaches for lack of holding facilities, for lack of marketing capability and for lack of marketing initiative to get that squid on to the market where there is a great demand for it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is excellent, by the way. I would commend squid to my colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin). Not only is it delicious but it is highly nutritious if properly prepared.
I found myself in agreement, much to the chagrin of my colleagues, with the deal that was made by the Newfoundland fishermen's union to sell squid and mackerel to the east Europeans. It is a market that we had not developed. Not a pound of mackerel had been sold in Newfoundland until that deal was made. So far as squid is concerned, if that deal has the effect of stimulating new marketing initiatives and getting the trade out of its complacency with respect to traditional markets and getting after these markets, then it was an even better deal than I suggested it was. I give the minister full

January 24, 1979
Government Organization
credit for giving them the licence to do so and 1 give the Newfoundland fish union and the allied workers' union and their president full credit for taking advantage of it.
What are we doing when we talk about selling squid? We are talking about unprocessed fish; there is no processing involved. They are merely selling their products to some foreigner who is buying them directly, and we are just eliminating the broker who usually acts on behalf of the foreign purchaser. However, I would not like to see that as a built-in part of our system because I suspect that ultimately it would destroy the union. After all, the major responsibility of the union is to act as a bargaining agent collectively for the fishermen it represents in dealing with the fish trade, and it could hardly do that if it found itself in that kind of conflict of interest position whereby the very people it had to bargain with collectively on behalf of the fishermen were competing with them for certain markets. So I know it will not become a permanent situation in this country.
The minister spoke about this plan of his which he released today for the first time.


Roméo LeBlanc: It is a public document.


James Aloysius McGrath: If it is a public document, then perhaps he can explain to us why he found it necessary to table it today. If the document is in the public domain, and I take his word for it, then why did he table it today as part of his speech? I suspect he did so in order to get at his colleagues in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland who had been pressing the minister and the government with respect to a plan for the development of the fisheries in the Atlantic provinces.
He knows, for example, that the government of Newfoundland has an excellent program, which it announced a short time ago, which it brought to the attention of the minister over a year ago and which was formulated in co-operation with the officials of the minister's department. It is a program which entails half a billion dollars in expenditures, a program that cannot possibly succeed without the good will and co-operation of the federal government. I can say to you now, Mr. Speaker, that that good will and co-operation will be forthcoming, because come the next election, when we form the government, we will be only too glad to co-operate with them. I look forward to seeing the present minister over here as the fisheries critic. He will make an excellent fisheries critic. I say to you, sir, that the program will succeed because it will receive the co-operation of the federal government.
It is the constitutional responsibility of the Government of Canada to provide services to the industry, and that speaks again to the low priority of the Department of Fisheries and the Environment in terms of government expenditures. Where do they cut when they have an austerity program? They cut the budget of the small craft harbours division of the fisheries service so that we cannot have our wharves repaired or our breakwaters extended and the facilities looked after. That happens year after year. The result is that the onshore infrastructure of the industry in terms of wharves, breakwaters, slipways and so on is in a sad state of repair. Again its speaks
to the lack of planning and lack of foresight in preparing for the day when the industry will come into its own as a result of the 200-mile limit.
One of the reasons I believe it is so essential, vital and crucial for the industry to have the department re-established on its own once again is its budgetary problems. After all, when the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) speaks in terms of his budget with respect to the Treasury Board, he has to go under the umbrella of the Department of the Environment and compete with the various services that make up that department. The result is that the subservices within the fisheries service, such as small craft harbours, usually are short-changed. The result is, of course, that we as an industry suffer the consequence. I hope that all of these things can come together.
I wanted today, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to the Premier of Newfoundland who has announced his retirement, and perhaps I can do so in the few moments I have left. He was a former distinguished member of the House. If there is one thing that can be said and will be said that distinguishes the administration of Frank Moores from any other administration in Newfoundland, it is its emphasis on the fishing industry and its importance to the future of Newfoundland. He turned it around when he became premier and took a positive approach as the government to the industry. The result is that our people now have a confidence in the industry which they have never had before. They approach it in a positive way. The whole population of the province feels positive about the industry and the potential it has to provide jobs for our people and careers for our young people.
I would have liked to have had an opportunity to talk about new species development, our relationship with the common market and what this means in terms of reducing our dependence on the U.S. market. I would like to talk about the saltfish sector and about the criminal situation which prevails with respect to salmon and the fact that the poachers are having a field day. The dynamiters are at work year after year, destroying ton after ton of salmon as they go up the rivers to spawn, because of the lack of funds on the part of the department to provide guardian protection on these rivers. I think that is criminal. If any other country had the potential we had in terms of Atlantic salmon, both as a commercial and sports fishery, it would not hesitate to put the dollars in there to protect this magnificent fish from poachers who are destroying it.
Unfortunately the clock has intervened, but in my final words I should like to say that I hope this bill will be referred, not to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, where it will receive the examination and attention which the fisheries part of the bill so justly deserves.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.00 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, January 25, 1979