1980-06-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion which is of pressing and urgent necessity.
As the Ministry of Transport is now in the process of dismantling the radar approach system at St. John's airport, which would constitute in certain circumstances a hazard to the travelling public, and indeed would lower the operational capacity of the airport, with the unanimous consent of the House I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House directs the Minister of Transport to issue the necessary directive in order to ensure that the precision approach radar system at St. John's airport continues to operate until the instrument landing system has been installed and is operative.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move, under Standing Order 43, a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises from the renewed freeze of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) on the extension of letter carrier service to new suburbs in Canada's growing cities.
In view of the loss of jobs resulting from the freeze, with the consequent increase in unemployment insurance payments, and the Postmaster General's announcement that he is planning a substantial increase in postal rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the Postmaster General end forthwith the freeze on letter carrier service, thereby providing job opportunities at a time of continuing high unemployment, and the traditional door to door delivery service which will ensure the quality of service necessary for the survival of Canada Post.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that the native training opportunities announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) on Monday will only help those who wish to work in large resource development projects or in large urban centres, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this training program be expanded to provide substantial opportunities for native people to work in all sectors of the economy, and to include training which will help native people develop their own opportunities within their own communities.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I rise concerning Admiral Robert Falls, former chief of the armed forces general staff and recently appointed Canadian NATO representative in Brussels, and the fact, as outlined in a National Defence telex which I have in my possession, that the government selected 30 potential Brussels residences for him, retained-presumably by option-15 for his consideration, subsequently on his instructions selected 8 Avenue de Fuji,

June 4, 1980
which he now occupies at a rental cost to the Canadian taxpayer of $8,200 per month, or almost $100,000 per year on a reported nine-year lease, with possible escalation clauses. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That this House strongly condemns the government, especially at a time when Canadians suffer from high mortgages and high rentals, for permitting Admiral Falls to indulge lavishly in apparent lust for luxurious living beyond the bounds of common sense, and demands a government statement on this opulent, elaborate self-indulgence which makes a literal lie of the government's pious, pompous urging of restraint.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise to put a motion of urgent and pressing importance before this House.
In view of the recent decision by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to close the Fraser River to salmon fishing for an indefinite period, a measure designed to conserve chinook salmon but which will wreak immense economic hardship upon the gillnet fishermen who operate in the Fraser River, and since no equivalent sanctions have been applied against other Canadian and United States fishermen who intercept these same chinook stocks outside the Fraser River, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be directed to take steps immediately so that the burden of responsibility for the conservation of chinook salmon will be shared equally among all west coast fishermen and. furthermore, that special sanctions be imposed against U.S. fishermen so that they do not benefit inadvertently from Canadian attempts to conserve chinook salmon.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Bruce Lonsdale (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the former Conservative government abandoned the approach of direct job-creation spending, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain):
That this House congratulate the Minister of Employment and Immigration for redirecting job-creation funds to give more help, particularly to women, youth, the handicapped, native people, refugees-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bruce Lonsdale: My motion continues:
-the poorly educated and disadvantaged in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Pierre said no.


REJECTION OF LOTTERIES AS FUND-RAISING VEHICLE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of importance to all Canadians.
Last week the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport, once again-like other Liberal cabinet ministers- bypassed Parliament by holding an in-camera meeting with the executive directors of the various sports associations of Canada at which he indicated his intention of renegotiating with the provinces the possibility of bringing back a federal lottery.
The minister conveniently omitted to point out that the federal government now receives $24 million a year from the provinces as a result of the previous government's positive actions in this regard. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House instruct the minister of state for sport to remove himself and his government from the promotion of any further gambling operations under federal jurisdiction, and instead concentrate his efforts on improving and expanding recreation, fitness and sports programs by, among other things, establishing tax incentives within the industrial and private sectors in order to develop alternate and additional sources of funding for these important programs.
June 4, 1980


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, my motion contains a very modest request which I have shown to the government House leader and to the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Both of them indicated they will not oppose it. Therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), I move:
That this House calls on the CBC, in the Across Canada segment of its nightly national television news, not always to go from the east to the west, but once in a while to go from the west to the east, or even to start from the north or from the prairies, as a gesture to the proposition that all parts of this country are equally important.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Last month, Canadian firms sold more than $29 million in marine and oil technology and services at the Offshore Technology Conference 80 in Houston, Texas. Those sales constitute a phenomenal success for a trade fair at which 30 Canadian firms, sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, can expect sales worth close to $110 million over the next 12 months as a direct result of the conference. To this end, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson):
That this House give unanimous support to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on his current policies which helped produce this most beneficial outcome for our oil and marine industries.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions NATIONAL UNITY


SUBSTITUTION OF &quot;CANADIAN&quot; FOR &quot;ANGLOPHONE&quot; AND &quot;FRANCOPHONE&quot;-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order, 43 to present the following motion which is urgent and pressing.
Whereas the Canadian Bill of Rights refers to the Canadian nation, and whereas in Canada, in recent years, terms like "Anglophones" and "Francophones" have been coming into common usage, and whereas when an individual becomes a Canadian citizen he or she is told by the judge "Now you are a Canadian", therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That members of this House urge the government to ban terms like "Francophones" and "Anglophones" in government usage and adopt the word "Canadian".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Bill Jarvis (Perth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In connection with an energy pricing agreement, has the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made a firm proposal to the producing provinces and, if so, will he indicate to the House the basic elements of such a proposal?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I have had the opportunity of discussion with the ministers of the producing provinces. We have considered elements of the pricing formula. The general elements of the pricing formula are known to this House. They include a formula of the blended price for oil sold in Canada.
As to the specific elements of this proposal, they are still being considered and discussed with the provinces. When those discussions are further advanced or concluded, I would be very pleased to inform my hon. colleagues of the details of this particular proposal.

June 4, 1980
Oral Questions


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that he proposed to the producing provinces an annual price increase of $1 per barrel on Canadian crude oil, plus an export tax on natural gas?


Marc Lalonde: "Non, madame le President."


William Herbert Jarvis: Madam Speaker, I wonder, then, whether the minister would confirm that it is not the intention of this government to reach an agreement by the end of June but, rather, it is government policy to permit the present agreement to expire on June 30 and then act unilaterally as a federal government to set prices after that date?


Marc Lalonde: Absolutely not, Madam Speaker.
[ Translation]


POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING IDENTICAL PRICE FOR GAS IN ONTARIO AND QUEBEC
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister announced recently the construction of a pipeline in Quebec. In connection with natural gas, in view of the fact that Quebec is levying, I understand, an 8 per cent tax on natural gas, did the minister meet with his counterpart or with authorities in Quebec to discuss that matter which is, on one hand, a revenue for Quebec but could also be an additional cost for other areas?


Marc Lalonde: I thank the hon. member for raising this matter which is surely an interesting point for Quebeckers, especially for those who reside between Montreal and eastern Quebec and who, as the result of our recent announcement, will finally have natural gas available. I must say that so far it has been impossible for me to meet my Quebec colleague. As the hon. member knows, in recent weeks Quebec politicians were busy dealing with other matters. We have agreed to meet on Monday or Tuesday two weeks from now, that is, on June 16 or 17. 1 will be pleased to acquaint my Quebec colleague with the problem raised by the hon. member for Joliette.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my supplementary question to the same minister. If I understand correctly, the purpose of the negotiations with the producing provinces is to ensure uniformity of prices in some areas. Could the minister indicate whether he will recommend identical prices for Ontario and Quebec? I am not referring to the 8 per cent tax, but to the price of natural gas.


Marc Lalonde: This is certainly a possibility we will consider. No final decision has yet been made, as the hon. member is certainly aware, for Montreal is still included in the Ontario price zone. What must now be determined is whether this price zone should be enlarged to include Quebec City and even.
some day, the maritime provinces. This issue has not been settled yet but will be dealt with during the next few weeks.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I should like the minister to give more information, for instance whether he is thinking of having identical prices in Ontario and Quebec, considering the zones that will be identified with regard to the arrangement?


Marc Lalonde: As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, this theory is now under study and consideration. However, no decision has yet been taken in that regard.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Given that a large number-30,000 or more-of Canadian auto workers are unemployed and that, in spite of the fact that most of the cars manufactured in Canada under the auto pact are sold in the United States, we are still suffering an $11 billion deficit, and given that foreign car manufacturers are making great inroads into the U.S. market, which will undoubtedly result in cutbacks in our sales in the United States, what negotiations are presently taking place between the Canadian government and foreign car manufacturers to try to offset the difficulty that we are presently facing and to guarantee jobs for Canadian workers?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, my officials have been in contact with a number of manufacturers, but 1 want to report to the House particularly about my personal efforts to ensure that Canada gets a fair share of Japanese automotive investment in North America.
I raised this question directly with the Prime Minister of Japan and his minister of finance when they were in Canada some weeks ago. I followed this up with discussions with the Japanese ambassador, and 1 intend to go to Japan to meet with officials of the Japanese government and the heads of motor vehicle manufacturing companies as soon as their election is out of the way and they form a new government. This is a matter to which I intend to apply, and have been applying, the very greatest priority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question, if I may. I applaud the minister's intent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 4, 1980


Ian Deans: Unfortunately, however, the United States government has already entered into negotiations and has received, commitments from manufacturers in Europe and Japan for the manufacturing of vehicles in the United States. The minister is much too slow off the mark.
When can we expect to hear from the hon. minister exactly what kind of commitments have been obtained by this government to protect Canadian jobs in the auto field?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as usual the NDP is desperately trying to play catch-up in attempting to match our present efforts on behalf of Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: 1 have already reported to the House on our considerable efforts to obtain our fair share in both parts and motor vehicle manufacturing in Canada. In fact, when we begin, hopefully at the end of this month, our formal consultations with the United States on the auto pact, we will be discussing with them a common framework for dealing with the matter of third country imports, particularly from Japan.
1 want to assure the House that this matter continues to have my highest priority. I welcome the support of members of the NDP, even though they have been rather late in recognizing this priority matter when it comes to the interests of Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the minister reminds me of Gerald Bouey: he waits for the U.S. to do something. Is it the minister's intention to hope to latch on to the end results of the negotiations between the United States and the foreign car manufacturers, or does he intend to initiate any action on his own in an effort to protect the Canadian economy and to provide job opportunities not only for workers who are unemployed but for people right across the country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if my hon. friend had listened as carefully as he talks loudly, he would have heard that we are taking our own, independent action to protect the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian communities.
1 have already said to the House that I raised this matter directly with Prime Minister Ohira of Japan, as well as with his minister of finance. I have called in the Japanese ambassador to insist that Canadian interests be taken into account with regard to Japanese investment in the automotive industry in North America, i will be going directly to Japan to talk personally with the new government and with heads of the automotive companies. 1 thought I had made this all very clear. I am sorry that my hon. friend, as I said, is more interested in making loud talk than listening carefully to our constructive action to help Canadian workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Ora! Questions ENERGY


INVESTMENT ENERGY PROJECTS-CREATION OF JOBS- AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and it also concerns the area of jobs. The minister is aware that investment in energy projects in this country in the 1980s is projected to create approximately 350,000 jobs. That means a great deal to people in the province of Ontario as well as to people in other industrialized areas of the country.
I was hoping that the minister might be able to commit to the House today his intention to achieve an agreement with Alberta by the end of this month so that those jobs can be created.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would hope to achieve an agreement by the end of this week, but it takes two or three people to make an agreement.


Mr. Andre:: You cancelled the meeting.


DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN MINISTER OF ENERGY AND MINISTER OF EMPLOYMENT ON JOB CREATION
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Since these jobs which will arise, from investment in energy, throughout the 1980s amount to 350,000 industrial jobs, has the Minister of Employment and Immigration had any discussions whatsoever with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding these jobs, and where do they fit in with respect to the minister's own projections for job creation over the next five years?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and myself have a variety of conversations about a variety of topics, including the question of how the investment of the federal government in the past, present and in the future will aid substantially in creating jobs in this country.
We are in pitch with our own priorities and our own targets. We want to use many of the major resource projects that are being planned to incorporate, enlist and recruit the labour available in this country that is not being used, particularly women and native people. That is part of the reason we established the kind of training programs which I announced on Monday.


PROJECTED PRICE INCREASES FOR CRUDE OIL
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a member who comes from a consuming province as far as energy products are concerned, 1 was rather startled to hear

June 4, 1980
Oral Questions
some of the replies given by the minister to the questions of the hon. member for Perth.
My question to the minister is this. If one dollar is not the price which the minister has suggested to the producing provinces as a suitable price increase, presumably in July, for crude oil, would the minister indicate-notwithstanding his blended oil formula, and that type of thing-what, in fact, he did suggest as a price increase in July or for the next six months of this year?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I said that we are in the process of negotiation. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to negotiate on the floor of the House of Commons. Discussions are going on with the producing provinces and further discussions will take place. As soon as we have reached a conclusion of those negotiations, I will be very happy to inform my hon. colleague about their latest results.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since this is the first time since mid-1977 that we are coming to the conclusion of an existing crude oil pricing agreement between Alberta and Canada, 1 would ask the minister: on July I, in the absence of a further extension to the June, 1977, agreement, and considering that the minister has stated the Canadian government will take no unilateral action, is it fair for us to assume that Alberta and, presumably, the other oil producing provinces are free to raise the price of their crude oil?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I have stated repeatedly in this House that our purpose is to achieve a negotiated agreement. This is still our objective and first priority. I hope by the end of the month to be able to announce to my hon. colleague that indeed we have reached agreement.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question further to the one raised by the hon. member for Rosedale. It is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
A central theme of the Conservative party energy policy-a theme which is well accepted by the Canadian manufacturing industry, many of whom are located in central Canada-is that there is a massive economic opportunity for manufacturing companies in supplying the requirements of the energy industry in reaching Canada's energy objectives, particularly in reaching self-sufficiency in oil. Does the minister agree with this point of view? If so, is the government developing any programs whereby Canadian manufacturing companies can be
encouraged to participate fully in reaching self-sufficiency in oil in this country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if I understand the hon. member's question correctly, he wants to know what we are doing to encourage Canadian manufacturing companies to take full advantage of the job-creating opportunities in efforts to reach energy self-sufficiency.
The answer is yes, we are working now on a number of programs designed to have that effect. We have committees working in touch with companies undertaking major energy projects to make sure that they take full account of the availability of expertise, machinery and other materials from Canadian sources. I hope a further, definite announcement will be made on this score very soon.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the response of the minister is as vague as all the other responses we have received from him in the House. I was looking for some specific programs that will encourage companies to source their supplies from Canadian companies and not go offshore and exacerbate our balance of payments problem.
Is the minister's reticence related in any way to the recent bail-out of the Chrysler Corporation, and is the Chrysler program in any way cutting into our ability as a country to encourage Canadian manufacturing companies to take advantage of some real opportunities in the future, rather than bailing out companies of the past?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am sure the many Conservative members who have written to me and spoken to me personally asking for support for Chrysler will be dismayed, to say the least, if not astounded by the negative response of my hon. friend at this effort to save at least 40,000 Canadian jobs. Now we know where this key spokesman for the Conservative party stands when it comes to saving 40,000 Canadian jobs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Trudeau:: Keep going, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is on the record. I want to add, with respect to the program to assist the Chrysler Corporation, that there is no immediate loan or subsidy. There are loan guarantees that come into effect beginning in two years only if specific commitments are met. Among those commitments are requirements for greater sourcing from Canadian companies.
Not only does this program help Canadian companies and Canadian workers, but it does not impede in any way our ongoing efforts to make sure that companies undertaking major projects in Canada use Canadian companies for sources of supply, and much more than was the case or would have been the case had the Conservatives stayed in office.
June 4, 1980


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice, to whom I have given notice through his parliamentary secretary.
On May 20 last, the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision in the case of Pappajohn v. The Queen, which was an appeal from conviction on a charge of rape. In the decision the court held that if an accused person honestly believed that the woman was consenting, even if there were no grounds whatsoever for that belief-no reasonable grounds at all-the accused should be acquitted completely. Our court thus followed the Morgan decision, a bitterly criticized decision of the English House of Lords.
Is the minister prepared to reverse the effect of this ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in the amendments which he will be introducing, hopefully shortly to the Criminal Code and, in so doing, will he remove this very serious injustice to all women in this country?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet had an opportunity to make a complete review of this issue. This is a very important decision, and following the review we are now making of the Criminal Code of Canada we shall see whether this decision should bring changes, or not, to the Criminal Code.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question. I am very pleased to hear that this question will be receiving priority attention in the review of the Criminal Code.
I would ask the minister, however, whether he will assure the House that, rather than waiting for an omnibus Criminal Code amendment bill, he will move quickly in this area and introduce a separate bill dealing specifically with the question of sexual offences against women, and whether in that bill he will remove the totally unacceptable spousal immunity whereby a husband cannot be prosecuted and convicted of rape against his wife?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, a review of that problem has now been under way for several weeks in the justice department, and I hope to be able to go ahead very soon. However, because we are dealing here with very complicated problems, I feel that I am not now in a position to give a more specific answer to the hon. member.

Oral Questions ENERGY


HIGH PRICE OF FUELS-POSSIBILITY OF SUBSIDY FOR LOW INCOME FAMILIES
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As the price of transportation and heating fuels will rise very rapidly when the $3 billion per year subsidy on imported oil is phased out and the government sets a new Canadian oil price, is it the intention of the government to greatly assist low income families meet these increased fuel costs by introducing an energy subsidy similar to the one introduced by the former government in its budget, which would pay $80 per adult and $30 per child, per year, to a family with a combined annual income of less than $21,000?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my hon. colleague for his interesting suggestion, but I want to point out to him that this government did not wait for an increase in the price of oil to take care of a group for which it is particularly responsible. Far from increasing the benefits by only $80 a year, as the Progressive Conservatives intended to do, my hon. colleague will surely recall that this government recently increased the guaranteed income supplement for all our senior citizens by $35 a month, which is much more than what the Tories had suggested.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, it is very easy to see from the minister's answer how he has gained the reputation of being the elusive minister in the cabinet.


An hon. Member:: The Artful Dodger.


George Harris Hees: In addition to the old age pension supplement, which was supported 100 per cent by all members of the House, would he give consideration to introducing, also, energy supplement to assist low income families meet the very high and steadily increasing fuel costs which they will have to meet in the very near future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is asking whether or not I shall consider his suggestion. As he knows, the government gives the greatest possible consideration to everything that comes from him.

June 4, 1980
Oral Questions


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, 1 would direct my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the lavish arrangements made by the government for living accommodation for Admiral Falls, Canadian NATO representative in Brussels and former chief of our general staff, at a rental of $8,200 per month-not far short of $100,000 per year.
Is it government policy to permit rental of extravagant and sumptuous living accommodations for any such senior Canadian official stationed abroad, and how does the government justify the expenditure of almost $100,000 per year in this particularly outrageous example of ripping off the taxpayer? 1 hope the Prime Minister himself, rather than the parliamentary secretary, will answer this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No, he will not.


Mr. Crosbie:: Silent behind a woman.


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: Belgium is as important a country as it is a delightful one. When it comes to Brussels in particular, I might point out to the hon. member that it does have the headquarters of the EEC and NATO, among other things. Therefore, it attracts a certain number of foreign dignitaries, as a result of which rents are rather high in Brussels.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Does it have a swimming pool?


An hon. Member:: That will teach you Pierre.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Ursula Appolloni: Therefore, it is incumbent upon Canada to provide suitable accommodation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ursula Appolloni: I am sure even the hon. member, who is not noted for his generosity in this House, will realize that neither a shack nor a lean-to are suitable accommodation for a man who represents the finest forces in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I would like to preface my supplementary. With all due respect to the parliamentary secretary, I realize that question was difficult for her to answer; it was sloughed off on her by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Therefore, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this. Will he guarantee that a full investigation will be carried out by the government with regard to the Admiral Falls' situation, and that all details will be made public as soon as possible? Particularly, will the Prime Minister also guarantee to the House whether it is now, or not now, established government policy that the office of the Minister of National Defence be staffed primarily by persons approved or recommended first by Admiral Falls?


An hon. Member:: Come on, Pierre.


Ursula Appolloni: Madam Speaker, the only guarantee I can give is, if the hon. member decides to go to Brussels, I shall personally ask Admiral Falls to entertain him in a shack or in a lean-to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: 
Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, 1 am glad to hear that the minister will be pleased to look into this specific case. With regard to affirmative action, let me ask a supplementary question. Considering that this charge against CNR follows on the heels of another sex discrimination case in a Crown corporation, that being the firing of two women from skilled jobs by Canadair, in Quebec, will the minister tell the House whether Crown corporations fall under the affirmative action program he referred to on Monday and, if so, when compliance with equality standards will be enforced?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to make this plain to the hon. member. He may forget that it was the previous Liberal government that established the Canadian Human Rights Commission and put the legislation into effect which now gives these people the opportunity to take their grievances forward to the commission.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: It was this Parliament, unanimously.


Lloyd Axworthy: And that is the reason it is there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: That is why we had a human rights bill, and why we have a commission which allows these particular cases to be heard on a case by case basis.
On the more general question of affirmative action, we have stated in the throne speech and I have stated in this House that we are presently preparing an assessment of the affirmative action program. This will be brought before cabinet in a matter of two or three weeks to be examined, and we will be making an announcement as to how it will apply generally throughout the public service and the area of Crown corporations.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. 1 will try to put it with at least as much humility as that displayed by my colleague, the hon. member for Northumberland.
Can the minister assure this House and the Canadian public that the settlement reached with the Canadian Union of Postal Workers is in the national interest and is not the 26 per cent give-away as reportedly alleged by the hon. member for York-Peel?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the House that yesterday afternoon the
Oral Questions
Treasury Board ratified the agreement between the Post Office and the Canadian Union of Postal Workers. Madam Speaker, this wage agreement represents an increase of 8.1 per cent for the entire contract period. As for the other benefits awarded under this contract, including the wage agreement, they represent an increase of 10.4 per cent for the entire contract period.
Madam Speaker, it should be noted that this agreement is in the best interests of all Canadians. It is quite a reasonable agreement and one which we are very happy to have reached with CUPW; it augurs well for labour relations within the Post Office.


SETTLEMENT WITH CUPW-EFFECT ON MAIL RATES-COST TO DEPARTMENT
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, my question is almost supplementary to the one asked by the previous questioner.
Now that the contract with CUPW has been ratified by both the union and Treasury Board, will the Postmaster General inform the House how much it will add to the Post Office budget for the fiscal year and the deficit-which has been running at a half billion dollars for the past five years- and could the hon. gentleman indicate whether his plan to increase first-class mail rates possibly up to 25 cents a letter flows directly out of this rich settlement?


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker. I think that the hon. member has somewhat lost touch with the Post Office Department in the last few years, because the deficits have varied from one year to the next and have not been consistent, as he would have us believe.
Furthermore, we must surely revise certain postal rates periodically. This is done every two years or so, and 1 expect we will follow this tradition and soon submit new proposals to the House of Commons which, Madam Speaker, will not come into effect immediately since we agreed several years ago with postal users to give them the required time to adjust to proposed increases.
[ English ]


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Madam Speaker, I think you will agree that that is a rather oblique response. Perhaps I can approach the question from a different direction.
In view of the impossible financial straitjacket in which Canada Post has placed itself, as evidenced by the renewed freeze on letter carrier service, for example, which is the most visible service of the Post Office, is this the beginning of the phase-out of traditional postal service in the face of growing competition from private couriers and the new technology of electronic mail?

June 4, 1980
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M50)


André Ouellet: 1 am glad the hon. member is now asking his questions, rather than following the common practice of some hon. members who do not have the courage to ask questions but, instead, use Standing Order 43 as a means of making all kinds of wrong assertions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


André Ouellet: Allow me to tell the hon. member, because he has the courage to ask questions directly, that the last time letter carrier service was extended was by a Liberal government. Under the Conservative government, nothing significant was done in relation to increasing the service of letter carriers.
I am pleased to tell the hon. member that, now we are back with a Liberal government, we shall be looking at our commitment with regard to postal services in a number of cities where letter carrier service is already in effect, and hoping to extend those services.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Using the analogy of the Postmaster General, who now says we are under a Liberal government with its generosity toward public servants, I wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board would tell the House what is intended by him with respect to a host of professionals and other public servants who were laid off by his government in 1978, some of whom have been placed but many of whom have not been placed notwithstanding promises made by that government that they would be placed.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: 1 would remind the hon. gentleman that no lay-off policy was introduced by the Liberal administration. He may be referring to the policy introduced by my predecessor, the hon. member for York-Peel, who had to introduce such a policy when he inferred that he would eliminate 60,000 jobs in the public service.
The hon. member knows very well that efforts to find other employment within the public service for people laid off because of the Liberal constraint program preceding May 22, 1979, have been exceedingly successful.


Walter David Baker: Surely the minister must be aware of the famous shot in the dark of the night by the Prime Minister on August 1, 1978, when lay-offs of public servants began. The Prime Minister can aim Justin's gun at me if he wants, but that is what happened to the public service. One of the things that Liberals-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Could we have the question, please?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the minister himself, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, the hon. member for Ottawa West and I have called for the development of retraining programs for the public service.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member please put his question.


Walter David Baker: I am doing my best to put my question. If you could caution hon. members over there and ask them to do their best to stay quiet, the President of the Treasury Board knows-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter David Baker: The President of the Treasury Board knows-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter David Baker: -the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier knows, and the hon. member for Ottawa West knows-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The question period is designed to receive answers to things the hon. member does not know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Given the promise by the President of the Treasury Board and his colleagues-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Walter David Baker: -when is the President of the Treasury Board going to make announcements with respect to the retraining programs for public servants which were promised during the course of the election and about which he has been strangely silent since the election?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I take exception to any suggestion that I have been silent, in fact, I discussed with the hon. gentleman the importance we attach to training and to retraining. We are, I hope, bringing forward some significant programs in this regard, and 1 hope to be able to make announcements in the House in the very near future. I shall be delighted to discuss further with the hon. gentleman some of his ideas which sometimes, I must say with respect, are quite good.


PARKS CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, this is not entirely in keeping with the claim of members opposite to generosity in their dealings with public servants. It was
June 4, 1980

brought to my attention a few hours ago that 35 employees of the Parks Canada regional office in Cornwall-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, in the interests of the civil servants concerned, I hope hon. members opposite will listen to this. Thirty-five employees of the Parks Canada regional office in Cornwall have either asked for transfer or given notice of their intended resignation as a result of the cancellation of the Parks Canada move to Peterborough, there is also a mass grievance presently before the Civil Service Alliance as a result of that cancellation and, in addition, there are signed petitions.
I ask the Minister of the Environment to tell us what he intends to do. In the light of what is taking place, does he intend to reconsider his cancellation of the Parks Canada move to Peterborough from Cornwall?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Patronage.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think that if the hon. member started to talk, he would get silence.


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question also is directed to the Minister of the Environment. I am sure the minister is aware that the Toronto Harbour Commission has begun dredging activities in the Keating channel with funds partially provided by the federal government. According to officials, some of the highly contaminated toxic waste may affect the Toronto water supply.
Given the serious reservations felt by both federal and provincial officials, and the doubts expressed by the minister's own officials as to whether flood control is a realistic reason for proceeding, would the minister tell us why no attempt has been made to begin EARP hearings over the past five years?


John (Moody) Roberts: As the hon. member has explained, we are opposed to the development and we have expressed that view very strongly. As I understand the situation, the determining factor here is with the municipality or the land use responsibility of the municipality.
As far as the EARP process is concerned, I would have to check and give the hon. member a reply. But we share the
Oral Questions
concern he has expressed and we have communicated that concern to the people responsible.


James Ross Fulton: The minister has just told us that his department is opposed to this project. Is he indicating to the House and to the people of Toronto that federal funds will be withheld from this project?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am not ready to make such a commitment at this point. At the present time we are examining the kind of approach we should take to the decision which has been reached.


TRANSPORT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland indicated in a judgment that the Canadian National ferry William Carson was unseaworthy. This is the ferry which sank in 1977 and was the subject of an investigation sponsored by the Ministry of Transport which found that the vessel was seaworthy.
In view of yesterday's finding by the Supreme Court which cast serious doubt on the inspection capability of the minister's department and which, indeed, placed the minister's department in a situation of conflict of interest in this respect, I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to order an independent inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the sailing of the CN ferry William Carson in 1977 before she sunk off the coast of Labrador.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the decision came out only yesterday, and I think the cautious thing for me to do would be to inform myself of the decision and to read the decision before commenting on- it further.


MEMBERS ASKED TO ADVISE MINISTER ON PROGRAMS- CONSTITUTIONALITY THEREOF
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It deals with asking members of Parliament to advise the minister on the various programs the minister has. The letter he wrote to me says:
-I am now inviting you to participate by indicating your support or non-support of all eligible proposals within these streams.
This is a very disturbing type of invitation to a member of Parliament, in view of our knowledge of what responsible

June 4, 1980
Oral Questions
government consists of and that only ministers should be able to propose the spending of money.
1 would like to ask the minister, in all seriousness, if he could relieve the uncertainty that is in my mind about the propriety and even the constitutional aspects of this type of approach. I think the correct procedure is for the minister to ask the Speaker of the House if he might consult with the Law Clerk of the House to see if this move, or this request by the minister meets the propriety which should exist on the part of a member of Parliament, and also to consider the constitutional aspects.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I take the hon. member's question in the seriousness with which it is posed. I want to assure him that what we were doing was simply putting into effect a practice which has been used by past governments in a variety of ways, which is to seek advice from whichever sources. We, as a government, have felt that the best source of advice as to local priorities in the various regions of Canada is members of Parliament.
I simply recall, for the hon. member, that we have had in the past ministerial advisory groups in each of the constituencies. Unfortunately, in the past administration the Conservative government abolished any form of consultation or advisory system involving members of Parliament. When I took over responsibility for the summer program, we attempted to reintroduce a program whereby members of Parliament would be able to provide their advice and recommendations to me. At the same time, we were soliciting the advice and recommendations of our officials, provincial bodies and other community people. Those different streams of advice came into my office and judgments were made as to the best projects.
As I indicated in my speech on Monday, under the new job-creation program we will be reintroducing the idea and concept of the ministerial advisory group. But it is neither unconstitutional nor improper. If it is, it has been improper and unconstitutional for many years. I suggest, although the hon. member is certainly far more experienced than I, that it is really the prerogative of the minister to seek advice from whichever source, and I happened to conclude that members of Parliament are the best sources of advice on our regional priorities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, in all seriousness, I suggest to the minister that many of us in the House who take very seriously our oath of office, and so forth, would feel much happier if the minister asked Your Honour to ask the Clerk to speak to the Law Officer of the House and get a judgment from him. 1 would take that as a much better precedent than just the viewpoint that previous governments have done this.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's years in Parliament warrant his advice being taken very seriously. I am simply saying that, by precedent alone, this practice has been
followed many times in the past. To satisfy him, I would be very glad to speak to Your Honour, with whom I enjoy speaking at any opportunity, and the Law Clerk.
However, I simply assure the hon. member that there was no intention to do anything improper. This is something many governments have practised. There are all kinds of advisory groups, councils and organizations the government uses to get the best and broadest range of opinion.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. On Thursday last, May 29, 1980, the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) raised as a question of privilege the failure of certain committees of the House to meet and attend to their usual business. The hon. member said that a number of those committees had not been organized, that others had met only to have their organizational meetings take place but that they really had not met at that time.
The hon. member for Crowfoot referred in his intervention to a number of specific problems which he thought should have been raised in the Standing Committee on Agriculture or the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to which the estimates had been referred.
As I indicated in my remarks last Thursday when listening to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, there were two main points at issue. The first was that certain committees had not met at the time the question of privilege was raised in the House. Hon. members will have noticed, of course, that since then at least four committees have been organized and several others have held meetings. For instance, yesterday alone 12 committees were having their meetings, today three more meetings have been scheduled, and there are five scheduled for tomorrow. 1 hope this will help solve the problem raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot. However, 1 must again remind the House, as I did at the time the question was raised, that the scheduling of the meetings of the committees does not come under the jurisdiction of the Chair but is the responsibility of the whip of the government as it is stated, and as it was referred to by some hon. members, in citation 579 of Beauschesne.
The second question raised in the question of privilege of the hon. member of Crowfoot dealt with the possibility, or the lack of it, of debating an urgent issue. This difficulty seems to have been resolved in part, as indeed it is possible to resolve these kinds of difficulties, as I myself have suggested in previous rulings. The difficulty raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot has been cured, at least in part, since last Friday the House debated a supply motion dealing with some of the problems referred to by the hon. member and other hon. members who have risen in the House to speak about this subject.
June 4, 1980

1 have to agree with the hon. member that the reasons for allowing a question of privilege are, to use his own word, narrow. It is true that it is not easy to define what is privilege. The reasons are extremely narrow, and questions of privilege are too often used in the House to disagree with another member, or to express dissatisfaction with the manner in which a question has been answered. There are all sorts of other grievances members might have.
However, the reasons for allowing questions of privilege are indeed extremely narrow. 1 agree with the hon. member on that point. I can understand the hon. member's frustration over the circumstances in which he raised his question of privilege because the problem was a serious one, and he did want to debate it, but he and other hon. members did have a chance to debate it.
As I say, I agree that the reasons for allowing questions of privilege are narrow. As a matter of fact, I remind the House that the reasons are extremely narrow. In this case, as in many other cases in which questions of privilege have been raised, I must state that 1 cannot find a prima facie case of privilege in the question raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot.


MR. DOMM-PROCEDURE DURING QUESTION PERIOD
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege flows out of the question period today. I feel that as members of Parliament in this House we should all be treated equally. It is obvious to me, as a result of the business which flowed out of the question period, that all members in this House were offered opportunities for supplementaries. As it will be recorded in Hansard, Your Honour asked me to sit down and be quiet in order that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) might answer the question. If my memory serves me correctly, the exact words Your Honour used were that, if the Minister of the Environment would answer the question, the House might remain more quiet. Your Honour's words were something to that effect. So I sat down. The minister answered "no" and sat down. I was immediately on my feet, noticed by everyone on this side of thp House, in an effort to pose my supplementary question.
1 suggest that this be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to find out if all hon. members are entitled to supplementaries. If they are not, 1 would respectfully request that you supply to this House some reason why we are not allowed a supplementary.
' '


Madam Speaker:: It is true that I did not allow the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) a supplementary question today. The reason for that is that that precise question had been asked several times of the minister, and answers to it had been given. I cannot make any judgment on the quality of the answer; 1 can only note that the question was asked several times. All hon. members are equal, but the decision on wheth-
Privilege-Mr. Olivier
er or not to allow a supplementary question is left to the discretion of the Chair.
Today the question period was very busy. Members on this side of the House wishing to be recognized were extremely numerous. Some hon. members had wished to be recognized for several days, and I was feeling just as frustrated as hon. members might have been that I was not able to recognize them. Therefore, since the question from the hon. member had been asked several times in the House, while many other members were asking to be recognized, 1 decided to give the chance to another hon. member to ask a question. That is not a question of privilege. Again, the supplementary question is at the discretion of the Chair, and if the hon. member will look up in Hansard he will know that he is not the only one who does not always get his supplementary question. In most cases, on the other side of the House, supplementary questions are never allowed; and even on this side of the House, supplementary questions are not always allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation)


MR. OLIVIER-USE OF BOTH OFFICIAL LANGUAGES WITHIN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. 1 have been a member of Parliament for eight years and as we are aware, this House has made it quite clear that each member could use his mother tongue, or that any person inside the Parliament buildings could also be answered in his or her tongue.
Madam Speaker, I have to inform you that twice last evening, and again this morning, certain persons could not be served in French nor obtain answers in French in the House of Commons, despite all your efforts, Madam Speaker, to change this.
I feel it is most important, at this point in time, that every member in this House realize, whether he speaks French or English, that he must be able to obtain service and answers either in French or in English within the House of Commons. The incident happened outside of this place, inside the Centre Block, and also in the Confederation Building and in the parliamentary restaurant.
Madam Speaker, I would appreciate your diligent attention to this problem to help those who want to be understood, and they understand once and for all that this is everyone's Parliament rather than the Parliament of one culture in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I am taking good note of the remarks made by the hon. member, and 1 must tell him that very precise and constant instructions are given that there be at all times, at both main entrances to the House of Commons at least, persons capable at any time of answering visitors in this country's both official languages. I shall inquire once more, and if today nobody in a position to communicate in French

June 4, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Olivier
with visitors was posted at the main entrance to the House of Commons, I will take immediate steps to remedy a situation that 1 find unacceptable just as much as the hon. member does.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I agree with the tenor of the remarks made by the hon. member, but I think the error that he has made is in casting aspersions on everybody in particular who works in all the buildings which he named. He did not say whether he meant the protective staff, the Mounted Police, or who it was. In other words, he is putting under a cloud all the public servants in this building who try to render bilingual services in both official languages.
I think that if a member is going to raise a matter of this kind he should be prepared to produce evidence, say what he is talking about, when it happened, give the names of the people who were unable to speak French or English, as the case may be, rather than come in here and cast aspersions on all the many good people who work in the protective service and the other services in this building.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has completely misunderstood the point of order, the question of privilege 1 should say, raised by my knowledgeable colleague for Longueuil. My colleague for Longueuil never had any intention of criticizing the good services given by civil servants or the staff of the House of Commons who do their best to answer the general public and more particularly hon. members in both languages. The hon. member for Longueuil had no such intention, on the contrary.
What he said with much pertinence is that it happened in some cases and he was careful not to give any names or specific examples today because he does not indulge in gossip like some other members in this House. He said that he was aware of two or three instances when people had not been able to get service in their language. I think that his complaint is justified and that the reaction of Madam Speaker to the comments made by the hon. member for Longueuil is also very justified and very favourable. I deplore that the hon. member should seek to brand these fully warranted remarks and objections as mere gossip. We are not here to single out civil servants who refuse to deal with people who demand to be served in the language of their choice, but to see to it that the policy of bilingualism is applied as much as possible, and that the Canadian public and hon. members are served in their own language. We are not here to write a gossip column where we can censure this or that civil servant for not doing a good job. What matters is the spirit of the remarks the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has made, not an effort to show that such and such individuals have not done their duty. I am sure
the Chair has understood the gist of the remarks the hon. member for Longueuil has made, and that the hon. member opposite will realize from now on that these kinds of objections are not made for him to spice his gossip sheet but to make sure that the House of Commons is recognized as a truly bilingual institution.


Madam Speaker:: I should like to put an end to this discussion, if I may. The purpose is not to accuse anybody of not speaking both languages but to assign duties. Surely there are places and areas on Parliament Hill where visitors should be dealt with in either of the official languages. The whole idea is to assign duties properly. I assume full responsibility for this, and I shall personally investigate the facts which the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) has brought to light.


MR. HNATYSHYN-STATEMENT MADE BY POSTMASTER GENERAL DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I rise on a question of privilege arising out of the exchange today in the question period involving the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). I am sorry that the Postmaster General is not here, but 1 feel that it is incumbent upon me, as a member of this House, to raise this question of privilege at the earliest opportunity because, in my estimation, in my submission, the Postmaster General has cast aspersions, not only on the members of this House, but also with respect to the operation under the Standing Order, and indeed, on the Chair, Madam Speaker.
The Postmaster General, in response to a question from the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), indicated that he appreciated receiving a question, because in effect he suggested that a device had been used by members of the opposition in moving motions under Standing Order 43, that somehow this was wrong, and not a procedure in accordance with the privileges and rights of members of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: They lacked courage.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: They lacked courage with respect to moving motions under this particular provision.
1 take very serious exception to that suggestion in view of the fact that there is a specific provision for the moving of motions under Standing Order 43. The Postmaster General will know that there is opportunity, in the event that unanimous consent is granted to the motion, to debate the issue, and for the Postmaster General to participate, as any other member of this House, with respect to any motion that is moved.
I resist the temptation to suggest that the Postmaster General is unfair and that he is, in fact, thin-skinned, and that he is a person who very often resorts to this kind of underhanded device. But I will quote, in support of this particular statement of privilege, citation 145 in the fourth edition of Beauchesne's, in which it states very clearly that no member, including a minister of the Crown, shall stand in his place and impute
June 4, 1980

motives with respect to the activities or actions of any member of the House of Commons.
We have here a situation on a daily basis where members of the opposition have the right to move motions under Standing Order 43, and you, Madam Speaker, are the sole judge of the appropriateness of those motions. In fact you ask whether the individual motion has received unanimous consent of the House. I object to the Postmaster General casting reflection on Madam Speaker in the performance of your duties in this House. The Postmaster General ought to stand in his place, if he has the courage, if he is the man he likes to pretend he is, and if he is interested in the House, to withdraw any implication of motives by any member, including Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Of course Liberal members have no respect for this House; they laugh at this. But Madam Speaker has a very difficult duty to perform. The fact is that it is clearly within the rules and the citation 1 have indicated. The Postmaster General in his remarks, as 1 heard them in the House, cast aspersions with respect to people who stand in the House and move motions under Standing Order 43.
I have one final comment in relation to this question of privilege. I feel 1 have moved motions with respect to the responsibilities of the Postmaster General relating to the operation of the Post Office in the province of Saskatchewan. I have attempted to obtain answers from the Postmaster General. I wrote him something in the vicinity of 50 letters on behalf of constituents, people in the Post Office and people interested in the operation of the Post Office. I have not had the courtesy of a reply from the Postmaster General to any of those letters. I still have not received one. I suggest that the motion under Standing Order 43 was one step toward convincing the government to change the wrong-headed policy that it was considering. There is some merit in motions under Standing Order 43. It has been demonstrated that, in using that device, we in the opposition can bring the government to its senses, and the Postmaster General in particular.
With respect to the operation of this House, if the Postmaster General continues to cast aspersions on members moving motions under Standing Order 43, Madam Speaker should ask him, under the citation 1 have indicated, to stand in his place and withdraw any implication of motive with respect to the operation of that rule.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief in my intervention. There is another aspect to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and that is the direct statement of the minister accusing those on this side of the House who raised motions under Standing Order 43 and not putting questions to
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
ministers, of lacking courage. Those were his words, that they lacked courage and that is why motions under Standing Order 43 were moved. Page 111 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne clearly lists the word "coward" as being unparliamentary. The accusation that a member or members lack courage is a clear implication of cowardice, and I ask the Chair to apply that logic.
If the hon. member for Saskatoon West has not already convinced the Chair that there is merit in his submission, certainly I suggest that there is merit in my submission to the Chair, that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) be asked to withdraw a reference he made in today's question period to a member or members moving motions under Standing Order 43 because they lacked the courage to put questions.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in a brief word or two I should like to support the position taken by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and to urge that when the record is available Your Honour study it and see if something should not be said tomorrow about it.
The two points have been made; I simply underline them. On the one hand the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), in my view, imputed motives to an extent not permitted by the rules. Also he accused certain hon. members on this side of the House of being cowards or of lacking courage. Surely that kind of language is not appropriate, and I hope Your Honour will study the matter overnight.
While Your Honour is looking at the record of today's proceedings, 1 wish you would also look at the answer made by the same Postmaster General to the question put to him by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne). I think Your Honour will find that nowhere in the answer given by the minister was the question itself answered. The minister simply used the question for the purpose of making a statement. If the minister wants to make a statement he can do so on statements by ministers, but he should not bootleg it in, in that way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, obviously, it is not a question of privilege. The hon. member complains that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) replied to him that, in some cases, members opposite used that famous motion moved under Standing Order 43 for partisan purposes, but that they did not follow up with questions to the minister, thus preventing him from retorting to allegations which at times are far from the truth. So, I fail to see how an allegation made by the Postmaster General to the effect that they lack courage violates the members' privileges.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said that to lack courage in English is synonymous with "coward", but I think
1750

June 4, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
that our rules forbid unparliamentary language, and if the Postmaster General had called the member a swine, I realize the latter would have been justified in raising an objection and you would have been right in asking the minister to withdraw, since it is an unparliamentary term. But I do not think there is anything unparliamentary in saying that, generally speaking, hon. members who misuse the procedures lack courage. What I understand from the attitude of both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Yukon is that they would like to be allowed to lack courage and not be reminded they so do. Further, 1 think the House of Commons is not a place where hypocrisy should reign, Madam Speaker.
It is obvious that since the beginning of this session hon. members have misused Standing Order 43. Indeed, a large number of members move motions under Standing Order 43 for reasons other than those provided for. It is clearly stated that motions should be of urgent nature and that hon. members are dispensed with giving notice of their motion only when it is a matter of urgency and of pressing necessity.
But when hon. members want to congratulate certain organizations or mark political points and make allegations against government members without asking questions later on on the same subject, thereby preventing us on this side from answering back, if that is not lacking courage I fail to see how else I can describe it.
And if we, on this side of the House, are required to keep quiet, to refrain from commenting and to let members opposite misuse that procedure at times, I suggest it would be unfair to prevent the Postmaster General from taking this opportunity to complain as he did today.
So, Madam Speaker, I do not hesitate to assert that first, the language and behaviour of the Postmaster General was quite parliamentary, that he did not reflect on the privileges of any member, and I even commend him for having seized this opportunity to bring to the attention of the hon. members, especially those opposite, the fact that since the beginning of the session, they have clearly abused your patience and Standing Order 43 and that most of the time, they move motions under this Standing Order for purposes quite different from those for which it was really intended.
Madam Speaker, it is unfortunate that after two elections in one year, when we have such a heavy legislative workload, hon. members manage to take 10, 15 or 20 minutes of the time of the House to raise matters as frivolous as the one that was raised today by the former minister of energy, mines and resources, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon. I think it is a shame and I suggest all those who are at present watching us on television rightly deplore the fact that parliamentarians do not act as they should. This is the kind of frivolous question of privilege that reflects on the image of this institution, Madam Speaker. It is because of this kind of filibustering that
we do not always command as much respect as we should from the Canadian people.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should have thought there was nothing more prone to deteriorating the reputation of Parliament than to have the leader of the House stand up and defend the indefensible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I would rather have had him, as the leading parliamentarian in the House, except for yourself, Madam Speaker,	rise	in his place and	say that hewould bring forcefully	to	the	attention of the	Minister of
Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) the matters that have been raised, rather than hiding behind legalisms by saying this is not a question of privilege.
It is either a question of privilege or a point of order; it is one or the other. I do not want to repeat all the arguments, in order to save time, but	it is one or the other. It	was abusiveand, however you want	to	deal	with it, the hon.	member for
Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was right. You should take a look at it overnight; you should review it not only in terms of a question of privilege, which has come to have quite a narrow interpretation in this House, but in terms of a point of order. You should review it in terms of whether it is appropriate, from the point of view of the operation of this Parliament, for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) to cast doubts about this institution, that is, whether it is appropriate for a minister of the Crown, experienced like the Postmaster General is, to accuse other members when they use legitimate parliamentary devices of lacking courage.
Perhaps the President of the Privy Council should take his own advice and talk to the Postmaster General. In that way we might proceed in a much better way in this House.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I too wish to support the suggestion that you take these remarks under consideration. Surely the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is wrong. This issue does not involve motions under Standing Order 43, but rather it involves the abusive remarks of the minister, or whether the remarks of the minister were abusive. Although I was concerned when I sat through the debate on the Speech from the Throne when a minister spoke about the press in Quebec, and quite frankly spoke with rather fascist tendencies toward that press, I could accept that because that is part of debate. But we do not have to sit here and accept the kind of language he was using with the Quebec press, language used toward members of Parliament who are simply doing their job when standing and raising matters in the House of Commons under the provisions of Standing Order 43. When that occurs it becomes a matter of privilege.
June 4, 1980

1 say the issue is not whether motions under Standing Order 43 are properly broad or improperly broad, or about the content of those motions; the issue is whether the minister can get away with this kind of abusive remark, in effect calling members of the opposition cowards.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, my intervention will be short, and it is in support of the position taken by the government House leader.


An hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: There is absolutely no shame in supporting that position, from my point of view. I do not share the point of view expressed by some members on the other side. I suggest that at the very least there can be nothing more wrong with the phrase that was used, "lacking in courage", than in the phrase "fascist tendencies" as used by the hon. member who spoke just most recently. How they can argue on the one hand that the one is objectionable and the other is not, is beyond my comprehension.
The hon. member for Ottawa Centre, the House leader for the Conservative party-	'


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) suggests that he has substantial difficulty in understanding why the House leader would stand up and argue what he calls legalese. You are here, Madam Speaker, to administer what amounts to justice in this House and, indeed, to deal with legalisms. For him to find it strange that we should be dealing with legalisms is to admit that he is unable to understand the workings of this House, and surely he has been here long enough to understand that.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has indicated that, in fact, he wants you to examine the record to determine whether the question posed by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) had, indeed, been answered. His question essentially dealt with two points. You will find that the hon. member had asked whether the contract that had been signed, was in the nation's interests, and whether it was at the level of 26 per cent as alleged by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Both of those points or aspects of the question were answered in the response of the Postmaster General.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I think you will find that is so when you examine the record.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I think the point being raised by the Postmaster General, and what gives me cause to rise and join in this debate, is the fact that members have sat on this side of the House and have recognized, as I am sure you have, that members opposite raise all kinds of allegations in motions under Standing Order 43, and present facts that are dubious and cannot be proved. They then fail to seek the floor in this
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
House and put a question that would force them to substantiate those allegations, or prompt an answer by a minister that would in fact prove the allegations wrong. They do this when they fail to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to change the direction of the business of the House, thereby refusing to allow the government to go forward with the work of the day. They do this when they fail to obtain consent.
1 am sure this persistent use of the rule, and 1 hesitate to say "abuse", which admittedly does exist, in a manner such as this leads one to question whether it would not be appropriate for hon. members opposite to pose a question, having failed to obtain consent under Standing Order 43. This leads one to question whether the hon. members really are sincere or are attempting to use Standing Order 43 as a tool to accomplish some other end. I have in mind their use of Standing Order 43 and their failure to follow up those motions by seeking the floor to ask a question, even recognizing that you, Madam Speaker, cannot recognize everyone who seeks the floor during the question period.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 believe we have two things taking place at the same time, a question of privilege and a point of order. The question of privilege relates to the matter raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), and the point of order came later during the intervention by the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the same question of privilege. I am not clear whether the point of order was raised in respect of the language used by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) in his reply. I will have to check the record, because at the time the minister spoke I was not struck by anything that seemed to be unparliamentary. However, since several hon. members have raised questions about the language that was used, I will check the record. '
I am not clear whether the word alleged to have been used was "coward", or the phrase "lack of courage" as suggested by some hon. members. Sometimes when an hon. member uses a word different from the one he might like to have used, the hon. member does so to soften the expression. Perhaps the minister followed that course in order not to use unparliamentary language. However, 1 want to look at the record.
I am sure the minister said of the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that he did have courage. If the implication was not well taken by some hon. members, that anybody else who did not do what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris did, did not have the courage and therefore was called a coward, I will have to look at that matter and review the exact wording in Hansard. I will speak to that matter another day.
1 can deal with the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with regard to the point that the answer was not related to the question. That is not for me to judge. A question was asked, an answer was given, and 1 do not have any opinion of the quality or the relevancy of an answer. This opinion is often expressed in the

June 4, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Siddon
House. Many members feel that the answers are not related to the questions they have asked. I think that that disposes of that point. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is entitled to his opinion in this regard.
[ Translation]
With regard to the question of privilege of the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), it seems to me it will be easier for me to rule since, in his intervention, the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) expressed an opinion on the way hon. members rise under Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Saskatoon West does not share the views of the minister, but that again is an opinion. Therefore, there is nothing here for me to decide.
The hon. member for Saskatoon West also brought up the possibility that the remarks of the Postmaster General may have implied indirect criticism of the Chair. Frankly, at the time the minister spoke, I did not feel I was being alluded to. But the hon. member is entirely correct when he says that it is up to the Speaker to decide whether or not the motions presented under Standing Order 43 respect our rules, and when I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, I suppose one must conclude 1 consider them in order. Consequently, the Chair alone decides in the matter and I thank the hon. member for having pointed that out; but in all honesty I must say 1 doubt that the Chair was criticized, even indirectly. Therefore, 1 am sorry 1 cannot hear other hon. members who would like to speak to the two questions that were brought up. 1 gave a ruling on the first. As for the second, concerning unparliamentary language, I shall look at Hansard and give a ruling a little later.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, very briefly, it was not my intention to raise a second question. It was merely to add another point to the original question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn). The submission was that it was simply either a question of privilege or a point of order, taken together.


POINTS OF ORDER
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to raise a point of order which is somewhat detached from the question of privilege which was just raised. However, 1 think that it does have to do with the atmosphere in the House this afternoon and the subsequent attack by government members opposite on the motives of hon. members on this side of the House with respect to placing motions under Standing Order 43.
In putting my motion under Standing Order 43, which was fourth on your list, I found the banter and the clamour in the
chamber very difficult to deal with. Perhaps there are some ministers and members opposite who are under a lot of pressure these days which is making them temperamental. I believe that the background hubbub was coming from that side of the House because I believe that members on this side want to hear the motions under Standing Order 43. 1 think that that atmosphere of banter, or collegiality if one wishes to call it that, is really a frustrating calamity which is distracting to hon. members on this side when they are trying to put their motions.
With all due respect, Madam Speaker, I suggest that the atmosphere and the environment of the House, particularly during question period, are very important. I do not wish to see cabinet ministers provoked to the kind of exchanges which the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) seemed to be guilty of this afternoon. I suggest, Madam Speaker, that you speak to the House leaders in an attempt to prevent a recurrence of the calamity which we witnessed this afternoon.


Walter David Baker: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 think that the hon. member realizes, as I am beginning to learn, that from day to day the atmosphere in this House varies. I am trying to understand it, but I am not sure that I can understand fully the reasons which cause the House to be rowdy one day and more silent the next day. Sometimes it is merely that spring is in the air, and other times it is something else.
When members of the opposition feel that they have a point, they get very excited, and justifiably so. That makes for a lively question period. I do not like to rise like a springboard all the time to call order. I am sure that that would not be acceptable to hon. members. 1 watch for the moment when the House seems to be getting too noisy before 1 call order. I do not wish to cry wolf too often because I do not think that is a good tactic. I have been receiving the co-operation of the House. It is true that the atmosphere was a bit more rowdy this afternoon, but 1 do not think that hon. members were prevented from listening to the hon. member's motion under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon). It has to do with the whole business of Standing Order 43s with regard to the atmosphere and the works. Your task, Madam Speaker, is a very onerous and difficult one. The reason that it appears sometimes that motions under Standing Order 43 are placed on various subjects which may not be truly of a national nature, pressing or urgent, is because of the difficulty of hon. members on both sides of the House in bringing up important matters relating to their constituencies, and the fact that it is not possible to get on in the question period as frequently as some hon. members would like.
I suggest that all members of this House look toward some method which will offer greater opportunity for members to put short questions or motions before the House on matters of
June 4, 1980

urgent concern to them, so that they may be debated. Perhaps, as an example, they could be debated during an expanded adjournment debate. 1 would like to emphasize, Madam Speaker, that when hon. members put motions under Standing Order 43 it is not because they wish to stand up and apply hit and run tactics toward a particular minister. Nor is it cowardice that makes hon. members put motions under Standing Order 43, rather than ask questions. It is not cowardice at all; it is desperation in an attempt to get the floor.
All hon. members should consider the problems not only of Madam Speaker but of many hon. members and their frustration in trying to bring up important and urgent topics about their constituencies.


Madam Speaker:: I take note of the remarks made by the hon. member. I would only add that if the members co-operated in making their motions under Standing Order 43 briefer, we could get more in, and that also applies to the question period.


MR. TOWERS-INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENT MADE BY PRESIDENT OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order. I think that it casts a reflection on you, Madam Speaker, when the government House leader says, and I believe that I heard him correctly, that motions under Standing Order 43 take up to 20 minutes. As you know, prayers take five minutes and are usually completed by 2.05. I have noticed that you have been very punctual, Madam Speaker, in going on to oral questions, as the orders prescribe, no later than 2.15. Therefore that would leave us with about ten minutes for motions under Standing Order 43.
Perhaps the House leader would like to look at his blues, and if he did say that motions under Standing Order 43 take 20 minutes, which I believe he did, he will wish to correct the statement and not leave this reflection on you, Madam Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, just to clarify very briefly, when I referred to the phrase "20 minutes" I was not referring to the time used for motions under Standing Order 43. I was referring to the time used on the frivolous question of privilege raised by his colleague.


MR. EVANS-REPLY TO QUESTION RAISED IN DEBATE BY MR. BLENKARN
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, on Monday night the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) asked a question. At the time I did not have the answer. I have that answer now, and if I could have the unanimous consent of the House I would read it into the record.
Privilege-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi) [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Order. We are reverting to the request of the hon. parliamentary secretary who asked for the unanimous consent of the House to answer a question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has the floor.


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, on Monday night the hon. member for Mississauga South asked how much of the government borrowing was raised under the borrowing authority of $7 billion which came into effect November 1, 1979, and which terminated on March 31, 1980. The answer to that question is that $4.6 billion of the Borrowing Authority Act of 1979-80 was used. This use took the form of $1.6 billion in the form of treasury bills, and $3.2 billion through the issue of marketable bonds and finally, $.2 billion was credited to the account through the paying off of drawings on the standby credit facilities.


MR. DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-STATEMENTS MADE DURING PRIOR PROCEEDING
Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1
will be very brief, Madam Speaker. I want to speak on the comments made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on the question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I did not interrupt hon. members. They should listen now.
Madam Speaker, I want to say very briefly that the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) did indeed answer my question very completely. I want to raise a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have ruled on that part of the question which was raised. If the hon. member wants to speak of parliamentary language, I will hear him, but 1 think I have already ruled on the part he is commenting upon, so I can no longer recognize the hon. member. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.

June 4, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland- Miramichi)


PRIVILEGE
Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: What a waste of time.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, 1 will rise on a question of privilege concerning the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) in reference to the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) when he referred to, and I quote, "the fascist tendencies of the minister". 1 suggest, Madam Speaker, that that is not parliamentary language. I suggest also that the hon. member should look to his own tendencies and the tendencies of his party with regard to the referendum in Quebec before he criticizes the actions of the Postmaster General, particularly when that party had a tendency to take no tendency with regard to the integrity of the nation and the referendum in Quebec.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member from New Brunswick is bootlegging all kinds of issues into this debate that should not be bootlegged into it. He said that we did not care about the future of this country and did not express ourselves. 1 want to say to you, Madam Speaker, that we have expressed ourselves about the future of this country many times. We want Canada to remain as a federation. We want to have one country with all the ten provinces in that one country called Canada. 1 do not think it is fair that somebody should put a false statement on the record, as the hon. member for New Brunswick has.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 hope the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) will read the blues himself and perhaps see fit to withdraw that kind of remark made in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I just want to clarify one matter. Let me tell you that the words I used were words that every Anglophone newspaper and editorial in this country used with respect to the remarks of the minister in that debate. They were the words of all the newspaper editorials. They said the minister showed lots of promise as a young minister with experience and so on, but they were shocked by his remarks, and the reports said that they showed fascist tendencies.
That is not what 1 accused him of in this debate. I said that this is something different and that the kind of tone of those remarks, while it may be a political mistake on his part 1 think, to have raised in that debate, he was entitled to raise it in that debate. But he is not entitled to take the same kind of line with the opposition in terms of what we are trying to do in Standing Order 43s and our questioning. That is why this is an
important matter of privilege, and the minister should not be able to get away with it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) made a hasty exit from the chamber while the member from the New Democratic Party was speaking. Maybe that denotes fright; I do not know. When he returns I think, for the benefit of the House, he ought to clarify what he meant by the words "tendency to take no tendency". That is what he said. What does it mean?


An hon. Member:: He does not know.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 will examine this new point of order in light of the comments and see whether any hon. member has used unparliamentary language, and let the House know what my conclusions are later on.

[ Translation]


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-6, an act to amend the Two-Price Wheat Act, to which the concurrence of the House is desired.

1 have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-2, an act to implement conventions between Canada and Spain, Canada and the Republic of Liberia, Canada and the Republic of Austria, Canada and Italy, Canada and the Republic of Korea, Canada and the Socialist Republic of Romania, and Canada and the Republic of Indonesia, and agreements between Canada and Malaysia, Canada and Jamaica and Canada and Barbados, and a convention between Canada and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Agriculture, in both official languages-Mr. Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stan-stead).
[Editor's Note: For text of the above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
June 4, 1980

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Deputy Clerk has laid on the Table the fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I should like at this time to present a petition signed by 51 employees of the Parks Canada regional office in Cornwall, Ontario, which calls for the government to continue with the transfer of the Parks Canada regional office from Cornwall to Peterborough. On behalf of the petitioners I ask for serious consideration of their request by the government. I hope that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), on behalf of the government, today will look more seriously at these 51 signatures from the management and staff of Parks Canada in Cornwall, and move the office from Cornwall to Peterborough in the interest of economy, efficiency, and good government.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I consulted with my colleagues and apparently I have the unanimous consent to introduce the following motion regarding the membership of parliamentary taskforces. 1 move:
That the Special Committees established May 23, 1980, be composed of the following members:
To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Regulatory Reform:
Mr. Anguish	Mr.	DenigerMr. Berger	Mr.	MacLellanMr. Cook	Mr.	Peterson-7
Mr. Crosby (Halifax West)
To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution:
Mr. Corbett	Mr. McCauley
Mr. Gurbin	Mr. Portelance
Order Paper Questions Mr. Lefebvre	Mr. Rose-7
Mr. MacBain
To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations:
Mr. Breau	Mr. Ogle
Mr. Dupras	Mr. Roche
Mr. Fretz	Mr. Schroder-7
Mr. Frith
To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on Critical Skills for the '80s: Mr. Allmand	Mr.	McDermid
Mr. Hawkes	Mr. Orlikow
Mr. Lonsdale	Mr. Tobin-7
Mr. Marceau
To act as a Parliamentary Task Force on the Disabled and the Handicapped:
Mr. Dinsdale	Mr.	PelletierMr. Halliday	Mr.	SmithMrs. Killens	Mr.	Young-7
Mr. Lang
Madam Speaker, shall 1 dispense from reading the list since it is rather long?


Madam Speaker:: The proposal of the hon. minister- [English]


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been consultations, and it is quite in order for that procedure to go forward now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, we also agree, on the understanding that the names will appear in Hansard.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following

June 4, 1980
Order Paper Questions
questions will be answered today: Nos. 59, 130, 195, 241 344 368, 626, 705 and 787.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did a Russian, Mrs. Olga Far-makovsky, defect some time ago and, if so (a) was she an interpreter (b) what were the circumstances of the defection?
2.	Was her husband a Colonel in the GRU, Russian Military Intelligence?
3.	Is she now living somewhere in Canada under another name?
4.	Was she at any time in contact with, in association with, or did she in any way communicate with Mr. Leslie James Bennett, formerly of the RCMP Security Services, or did he in any way make contact or communicate with her and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. The Montreal Gazette of November 10, 1966, carried an item outlining the defection of one Olga Alexandrovna Farmakovskaya on October 16, 1966, at Beirut, Lebanon.
(a)	This same article mentioned she was a secretary and interpreter in the Moscow bureau of the Toronto Telegram.
(b)	The article further stated she defected after coming ashore with a group of Russian tourists from a liner from Odessa. Lebanese authorities refused to hand her over to the Russian Embassy saying they would abide by international law and give her freedom to go where she wanted.
2. In so far as official knowledge of the RCMP is concerned, their policy, which I endorse, is to preserve the confidentiality of all information it holds on individuals and organizations.
3 and 4. See answer to part 2.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total number of persons in the Canadian Armed Forces and how many (a) are male (b) are female (c) have (i) English (ii) French as their mother tongue?
2.	Does the government intend to enlarge the number of Armed Forces personnel and (a) if so, what are the details (b) if not, for what reason?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. 79,909 as at 31 March, 1980. All figures below are in respect of regular force personnel.
(a)	74,421;
(b)	5,488;
(c)	(i)	59,619;
(ii) 19,903.
Three hundred eighty-seven personnel have indicated
another language as their mother tongue.
2. Yes.
(a) The increase will be to about 83,000 (regular force personnel) in accordance with the decision announced in 1977. The increase will be in annual increments, the size of which will be governed by the needs of the forces and the fiscal constraints existing each year.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	For each fiscal year (a) 1977 (b) 1978, whal was the total revenue and net earnings or deficits for the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation?
2.	For each year, what was the total (a) of direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits conferred by the government on the corporation (b) of loans, advances or guarantees extended by the government to the corporation (c) investment by the government in the corporation both before and after any write-off?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
information sought by the hon. member is equally accessible to him, being reported annually in the Public Accounts of Canada. To assist him, however, this information is as follows:
1.	The total revenue of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation was $9,298,043 in 1977 and $10,573,199 in 1978. The net income of the corporation was $4,822,445 in 1977 and $5,459,210 in 1978.
2.	(a) No direct or indirect subsidies or other benefits
were conferred on the corporation by the government during 1977 or 1978.
(b)	No loans, advances or guarantees were extended to the corporation by the government during 1977 or 1978.
(c)	The government's investment of $10 million in the capital stock of the corporation was redeemed by the corporation on August 26, 1977, by means of a payment to the government of this amount. The government also received a dividend of $491,667 from the corporation during 1977 in respect of the period January 1, 1977 to August 26, 1977.


Mr. Herbert: Will the government consider the provision of language training programmes for unemployed persons on the same level as is available for immigrants?


Lloyd Axworthy: Language training under the Canada Manpower Training Program is available to unemployed persons on essentially the same basis as it is to immigrants seeking employment. Such training is available to Canadian workers who have moved to other provinces and who require this training to find employment. Workers who have not relocated are expected to make use of provincial and private language training facilities.


June 4, 1980


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Did the Canadian Film Development Corporation submit its annual report for audit to the Auditor General and, if so, on what date?
2.	Did the Auditor General complete his audit and pass the corporation's report to the government and, if so, on what date?
3.	Has the government held up the release of this report and, if so, for what reason?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows:
1.	The corporation's financial report was submitted to the Auditor General early in May 1979.
2.	Yes. The report was given to the Secretary of State and the corporation on July 16, 1979.
3.	No, report tabled on December 4, 1979.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	As of March 31, 1979 (a) how many persons in the SX classification were employed by the Department of Finance (b) how many were (i) Francophones (ii) females?
2.	What are the present totals?
3.	Was there a structural change in the Department since March 31, 1979, and, if so, what effect did such a change have on the number of SX's employed?


Pierre Bussières: In so
far as the Department of Finance Canada is concerned:
1.	(a)	34(b)	(i)	3(ii)	I-2.	(a)	35(b)	(i)	3
(ii) 1.
3.	No.


Mr. Howie: How many persons engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations, are employed on staff in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
One hundred ninety-five persons are engaged in public relations, publicity or media relations as of April 1, 1980. This is inclusive of 136 officers and 26 support engaged in the promotion of tourism with the travelling public and the media, at home and abroad.
Order Paper Questions
In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned: Twelve people.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	For the fiscal year 1978-79, how many contracts were let by the Department of National Revenue for professional services, to persons who at any time within the past five years, had been employed in indeterminate positions under the Public Service Commission?
2.	How many contracts were (a) for less than one year (b) for one to two years (c) over two years?
3.	How many contracts were let outside the national capital region?
4.	What was the total cost of all such contracts?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Taxation 1. 2
2.	(a) none
(b)	2
(c)	none
3.	none
4.	$41,580
Customs and Excise 1 1
none
none
none


Mr. de Jong: 1.	Did the Minister of Supply and Services take action to decentralize government printing operations?
2.	Will the government be altering its policy so that western printing companies have more opportunity to participate in government contracts?
3.	What amount does the government spend each year on printing?
4.	What dollar value of printing is done for the government in each of the provinces?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.
Government printing operations have been decentralized since the mid 1950s. Each supply region of the DSS across Canada has a regional printing manager who is responsible for both government printing facilities and the purchase of printing requirements from commercial suppliers for Government of Canada customers located in their respective regions.
2.	Present policy provides extensive bidding opportunities for all printing companies in Canada, including those in the western provinces, to participate in government contracts offered in respect of both local and national requirements for printed matter. Also we continually monitor our procedures in order to provide better opportunities to all printing companies in Canada.
3.	$138,889,000-Requisitioned through DSS during fiscal year 1979-1980.
1758

June 4, 1980
Motions for Papers
National Capital Region	$57,410,000
Ontario	36,105,000
Quebec	33,521,000
Manitoba	3,894,000
British Columbia	3,758,000
Alberta	1,335,000
Nova Scotia	1,252,000
New Brunswick	706,000
Saskatchewan	585,000
Newfoundland	283,000
Prince Edward Island	40,000 $138,889,000


David Michael Collenette: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 736 could be made an order for return, this return be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House that question No. 736 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Nystrom: In the period June 1, 1979, to February 25, 1980, was there, within Treasury Board, any consideration given to the possibility of transferring some or all of the government's computer operations, especially those of Statistics Canada, to the private sector and, if so, what were the details of such considerations and what was the nature of any recommendation to that end?
Return tabled.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 1 and 19?


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 1-Mr. Cossitt:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the Province of Prince Edward Island.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Veteran Affairs would ask that the hon. member from Gren-ville-Carleton withdraw the motion on the grounds that the total volume of papers is such that the expense, in time and personnel, of producing them would be extremely high. As well, some of these documents involve the government of Prince Edward Island, and that government's consent would have to be obtained prior to their tabling. However, the minister does invite the hon. member to visit the department, and the minister undertakes to make available to the hon. member all possible material.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, first I would like the record to show that my riding is Leeds-Grenville, and not Grenville-Carleton as mentioned by the parliamentary secretary.
Why I must ask that this matter be transferred for debate is as follows. While I may be able to go and look at the material, the people of Canada and members of the Canadian Legion, in particular, who are highly interested in this subject, as all members know, are not going to be able to look at the material. There is nothing secret about the documents. It is the old excuse that it costs too much money, and we have heard that too often. I feel that it should be transferred for debate, and that the members of this House should have an opportunity to talk about it.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the proposition that the motion be transferred for debate. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 19-Mr. Siddon:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams or other documents exchanged between the government, its departments and agencies and the governments of Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Territorial Council of the Northwest Territories, since January 1, 1978, relating to the review and restructuring of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation.
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), who, I notice, is here, would respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion as a review of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is currently under way. The minister, however, would be
June 4, 1980

willing to table the final report of the review committee of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, subject to consent of all participating provinces and territories.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I did put down this motion for the production of papers because I am well aware of the fact that the review of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation is under way, and in fact there are certain meetings that should have occurred in the month of April, and certain decisions that should have been taken by this date with respect to that review. I believe, in view of problems faced by fishermen, in particular in the freshwater region, and concerns that they have with respect to the management and financing of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, that it should be a matter of public record as to certain exchanges of correspondence between the provincial governments involved and the Northwest Territories Council. Therefore I put this motion for the production of papers and 1 would humbly request that this matter be transferred for debate.


Walter David Baker: Transfer for debate.


Madam Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


Madam Speaker:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for second reading Bill C-28 which is legislation to extend and simultaneously to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.
As hon. members know, this is an act whose purpose is to facilitate the availability of credit to fishermen for a variety of fisheries improvement projects. To encourage private financial institutions to make such loans to fishermen, the act authorizes the federal government to guarantee lenders against loss incurred on loans made in accordance with its provisions.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
[ Translation]
This bill sets out the balance which may remain unpaid by a borrower at any time and the maximum period for reimbursement of each loan. It also determines the loan term and the aggregate principal in loans guaranteed by all lenders during this period.

This act was originally administered by the Department of Finance, and was transferred to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in June, 1978. Hon. members are no doubt aware that the existing legislation does not go beyond June 30, 1980. In the interest of the many fishermen who depend on this act for credit, it is therefore a matter of some urgency that the amendments be approved as soon as possible. This is what the amendments will do. They will extend the act for a further three-year period from July 1, 1980, to June 30, 1983.
In addition, to meet the expanding credit requirements of fishermen, the borrowing limit will be increased from the present $75,000 to $150,000, and the maximum repayment terms of each loan will be extended from ten to 15 years.

Loans made by chartered banks and other lending agencies designated in the act have increased considerably in recent years. The total amount of loans granted in the 1978-79 rose by some $28 million, or 55 per cent compared to the preceding year. This year, this amount might go up to $35 million or more.

Such a trend indicates a definite need to increase the over-all financial ceiling on guaranteed loans under the act. The amendments, consequently, will raise the aggregate principal amount of loan guarantees from the present $80 million to $250 million for the three-year lending period.
A number of things have been occurring to bring about the need for changes in the act. Canada's extended offshore jurisdiction to 200 miles has given new vigour to the fishing sector. Fishermen now require more efficient vessels to harvest the resources within our zone and, very important, to preserve the quality of fish until it reaches the processing plant.
[ Translation]
I am sure that it will be recognized as well that this guaranteed loan program gives fishermen a solid credit base and that banking institutions would probably not offer them such favourable conditions. Without such a program, it is probable that a large number of small independent fishermen would attempt to get support from the large operations, which would jeopardize their status as independent fishermen.

In this regard I feel it important that any measure which contributes to the goal of maintaining and, hopefully, increasing the independence of Canada's fishermen should be supported.

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
It is not easy for fishermen to maintain an independent status, particularly when it comes to paying out thousands of dollars to purchase a new boat or modify an existing one to keep up with technological advances. The danger here is that if the fisherman is unable to raise the necessary funds on his own, the processing companies move into the picture. And if the fisherman gets locked into the position of having his boat mortgaged to a processing company, he is in such a poor position to bargain over prices for the fish he has to sell.
So the Fisheries Improvement Loans Program is one avenue the fisherman can take when looking for financing to enable him to maintain his independence. It is also increasingly popular with fishermen, particularly on the west coast, where there is no provincial loan board. It is also increasingly important in the Atlantic provinces, and I expect it will become more valuable to fishermen because of rising prices. I might add that fishermen are a good credit risk. The loss ratio of this program since its inception has been less than three-quarters of 1 per cent.
May I also emphasize that this approach of providing credit to fishermen is very much in accordance with current fisheries policy as outlined in the Speech from the Throne. There is a great deal of support for this program. The provinces are familiar with it and have indicated their approval for its continuing existence. I am sure hon. members recognize its importance to the fishermen of this country, and I believe they will willingly endorse Bill C-28.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on Bill C-28. As the minister has stated in his brief remarks, it is really a housekeeping bill, but 1 submit that its introduction is long over due. I say this because the bill, in its explanatory notes, states that at present a guaranteed loan cannot exceed $75,000 repayable in ten years, whereas the amendments permit a loan of $150,000 repayable over a period of 15 years.
Naturally this measure will be helpful, and I can assure the minister that we on this side intend to support it even though we feel that, once again, it is too little and too late to help the fishing industry in the manner in which it should be helped. There is nothing, in my view, which demonstrates more to those of us who come from Atlantic Canada or, indeed, from other fishing areas whether in central or in western Canada, the complete lack of knowledge and the disregard the government shows in its approach to the problems of the fishing industry.
Here we have a government which has been in power for some 12 years, with the brief exception of the period in which my party was in office. There can be no question, in the light of the facts which have been revealed during the debate on Bill C-30, that the 12 years under the Liberals have been a period of spend, spend, spend, accompanied by deficits, deficits, deficits. It took $10 billion to run this country in 1978. In 1980 it cost $60 billion, and of this amount almost $15 billion will have to be borrowed in order to cover the deficit. This type of
fiscal mismanagement has created horrendous inflation which has affected every phase of industry from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and the fishing industry is no exception.
Both fishermen and processors today are hurting, and hurting badly. Conditions may not yet have reached the crisis stage, but the troubles in the eastern Atlantic ground fishing industry arise less from marketing difficulties than from the general cost-price squeeze. As processing costs grow, the profit margin is narrowed.
The cost of almost everything has skyrocketed. Workmen's compensation, chlorine, salt, transport, communications, insurance, capital costs, cutting tables, cutting knives, electricity and fuel oil, along with fish prices and labour-the list is endless. Trawl doors, for example, have gone up lately by 68 per cent, and net sections by 40 per cent. In 1975 an average trawler refit cost approximately $165,000. Last year a refit of a trawler of the same size cost in excess of $400,000. Passing on these increased costs to buyers has brought a reaction which I can tell this House is not too favourable.
All companies, large and small, have to borrow money to buy fish, to build boats. The present high interest rates are compounding their burden. In some cases fish dealers, reluctant to face higher interest charges, are lowering their inventories thus forcing the processors to hold fish in storage for longer periods. Last year, for example, many Atlantic based companies found themselves forced to hold much of their summer and autumn production through the winter into the spring.
To add to those problems, the industry is facing uncertainty due to present federal policies as they apply to the inshore, the midwater, and the offshore fleet. Unfortunately, the bill before us does very little to minimize these problems.
It is true the government guarantees payment to any lender in respect of any loss sustained if the loan was made under the terms of the act during the period from July 1, 1980 to June 30, 1983, and that it is setting a ceiling of something like $250 million, 1 think the minister stated, which would be used to guarantee all loans. The minister nods his head in agreement. I cannot put that nod on the record but I am glad to have his assent. However, I say to you, Madam Speaker, and thus, through you, to the minister, that there is nothing in the bill which states that a bank manager is obliged to accept any or all of the applications made under this legislation. For this reason the government can have no idea how many loans the banks may have declined to make.
If the principle behind the loans is not being properly exercised by the banks, the government would not necessarily know what is going on under the provisions of this act. For example, if a bank manager in any community in my constituency of South Shore were to state that in no circumstances could he make a loan to a fisherman under the terms of this act because of the difference which exists between interest rates on the free market and interest rates under the government's guarantee, how does the government know how many loans are thus refused, or the types of loans which are refused,
June 4, i 980

or the names of the banks which may have refused to grant such loans?
Fishermen who are successful in securing loans are obviously a very good risk, and I commend the minister for his statement in that regard. According to the March 31, 1979, annual report, out of the total number of 11,493 loans made from December 12, way back in 1955, to approximately the present date, only 124 claims had to be paid. This is a good record, an outstanding record, and it indicates the soundness of providing guarantees to those engaged in this important primary industry. Nevertheless, as I stated earlier, the amounts to be guaranteed under this bill are totally inadequate. I say this because of the manner in which the cost of boats as well as gear has escalated in the past ten years.
According to figures obtained from the Fishermen's Loans Board of Nova Scotia, a 40-foot lobster boat cost $11,000 in 1970, $30,000 in 1975, and $55,000 in 1980. A 65-foot dragger cost $150,000 in 1970, $285,000 in 1975, and $675,000 in 1980. A 65-foot longliner cost $95,000 in 1970, $150,000 in 1975, and $450,000 in 1980. Finally, a 150-foot stern dragger cost $1.5 million in 1970, $2.5 million in 1975, and $8 million plus in 1980. The cost could easily, as the minister is well aware, escalate to something like $12 million depending on the number of radar, sounders, depth sounders and other new technology and new instruments which are available today. These quite quickly build up the cost of a modern fishing trawler.
I place these figures on the record to show the total inadequacy of the bill, and the problems it is supposed to cover. Obviously when we look at these figures we cannot help but realize that the government will not exactly be swamped by loan applications because there is too much discrepancy between the amounts available and the amount required.
I should add as well that there is too much uncertainty about the cost of the loans. Under the existing regulations the fisherman may borrow from a chartered bank or an authorized lending institution at the prime rate plus 1 per cent. This rate fluctuates as the prime interest rate fluctuates. Because of this the fisherman really does not know what his interest charges will be from year to year. A substantial interest rate hike such as we have recently experienced, for example, would put the fisherman in a real economic bind, just the same kind of bind he would be in if his anchor rope got caught in his propeller. He would be anchored. 1 believe the fisherman should be able to plan his finances so that he will know at the time of borrowing what interest payments he will be expected to pay, and the rate of interest. If this could be arranged, he would be in a better position to know whether or not he can meet his obligations.
It is my understanding, subject to correction, that interest on loans from the Federal Business Development Bank are made at a pegged rate for at least five years. This type of policy, if applied to this act, would not protect just the fisherman but, I submit, it would also protect the Crown. I say
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act this because, as interest rates rise, so does the possibility of a fisherman defaulting on his loan.
I am also concerned about how the fisherman must repay his loan. According to the regulations, the terms of repayment are based on a repayment schedule which is agreed to at the time the loan is negotiated, and it is agreed between the lending institution and the borrower. Under this arrangement the lending institution could insist that the loan be amortized over a longer period of time than might be comfortable for the borrower. This type of arrangement, of course, would allow the lending institution to receive much more interest than is reasonable.
There should be some provisions, I submit, in the act which would cause the lending institution to realize that the fisherman's income is dependent upon seasonal employment, and therefore the fisherman should be able to repay more of his loans, if earnings warrant, during peak periods of the season, and much less when the weather dictates that his operations cease. This provision would allow the fisherman to reduce his debts during high liner periods, and he would not be so devastated when hit by a long period of high winds, high seas, and no fish.
When looking at the annual report for 1978-79 as printed under this act, I cannot help but note on pages 10 and 11 that the Bank of Nova Scotia has lent much more in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland than some of the other banks, especially the Royal. It would be interesting to know the reason for this difference. I have a suggestion to throw out to the minister. He is always interested in suggestions from this side of the House, and sometimes the party opposite is not averse to adopting some of our proposals.
I say to the minister that perhaps the time has arrived, in light of the present high cost of ship construction, for the government to consider establishing a Canada mortgage and shipping corporation from which loans and lines of credit could be made available for ship refits and for new ship construction. This type of corporation could help finance the construction of needed ships of all sizes in Canada, especially as we begin the renewal of our existing fleet. The rebuilding of our aging fleet, I submit, is something which cannot be put off indefinitely. New technology is required if we are to capitalize fully on the vast fisheries resources which are within our 200-mile limit, and not only within the 200-mile limit but beyond the 200-mile limit as far out as Flemish Cap, which is something like 400 miles off the coast of Nova Scotia. If we are to capitalize on the resources that are in this area, I submit that there is an immediate need for a fleet development policy to be established by this fisheries minister. By this 1 do not mean the continuation of the policy which was followed by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) in the spring of 1978.
I may be wrong in my estimate, but 1 understand he issued at least 14 permits to buy new or used fishing vessels offshore. This meant the loss of something like anywhere between $50 million and $80 million in work to Canadian shipbuilders and to allied industries. When the Canadian shipbuilding industry

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
heard this news, it naturally came as quite a shock, for the minister had indicated to the shipbuilders repeatedly that new permits and imports would be kept to a minimum pending the finalization of a Canadian fleet development policy.
The views of the Canadian shipbuilding industry were strongly supported by my leader when he was prime minister, for it was his intention to set out a policy which called for the building of fishing trawlers and freezer trawlers in Canada, rather than importing them. He stated at that time that he envisaged the expenditure of between $500 million and $800 million over a four-year period for a rebuilding of the Canadian fishing fleet in the Atlantic region. It is a matter of some regret, in our area in particular, that he was not given the time and the opportunity to carry out this worth-while policy which would have brought substantial economic benefits not just to Atlantic Canada but to Canadian industry in general.
As the minister is well aware, when a ship is built it is not unlike the building of a small town. Heat, light, and all the facilities required by a crew of 20 or more men are needed, depending on the size of the ship. Unlike any other industry, ship construction stimulates the entire economy not just in the immediate area where the ship is being built but halfway across the nation. 1 submit that there is very little this minister or this government can plan to undertake of a comparable nature to shipbuilding which would stimulate our entire economy, especially at this time.
When my leader was prime minister, he obviously believed firmly in rebuilding the fishing and shipbuilding industries, for in a speech to Toronto's Empire Club on April 19, 1979, he said: "It is foolish and it is wasteful for a coastal nation like Canada to let our shipbuilding capacity run down and then buy our fishing and ferry ships abroad". Since we are dealing with a bill which would provide only minimal aid to our fishing and shipbuilding industries, I commend the words of my leader when he was prime minister for consideration by the present government.
This leads me to ask what the government's present policies are as they apply today to new boat construction. Normally the fisheries department starts considering applications for assistance in April at the start of our fiscal year, and fishermen were well advised to do whatever they could to push their applications forward. It is my understanding, however, that for 1980-81 the government has in hand only something like $2 million to pay carry-over costs on boats which were started last year.
I would like to have the minister tell us just what the actual budget for the 1980-81 program is, and what the guidelines for that program are, that is, if the government has a program. The provinces would also like to have an answer, not only to this question but to many others. I say this because the ministers of fisheries in the three maritime provinces who met recently in Montreal expressed their dissatisfaction at the lack of meaningful consultation over the issue of direct so-called over-the-sides sales of fish to the Soviets. In fact they have charged that this year's allocation was decided by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans prior to a meeting that he
held in Moncton, New Brunswick, to discuss this very matter. They also questioned whether the minister has the legal authority to allocate amounts of fish to foreign buyers without the approval of the provinces.
The over-the-side sales contract that was given by the minister to the Soviets was, in my opinion, not really a good deal for Canada. Basically, the minister gave certain maritime groups, as I understand the issue, permission to sell some 6,000 tonnes of mackerel and 950 tonnes of squid to foreign vessels. However, the catches, when the time came to deliver, fell far short of this level.
The buyer, which was called Joint Trawlers of Sweden, which makes deals for the east bloc vessels, paid maritime fishermen only about $500,000 for some 2,300 tonnes of fish. As part of this deal, however, Joint Trawlers could then make use of what we call guarantee fish, namely, in this case, offshore squid.
Because inshore sales fell short, Joint Trawlers, on behalf of the Soviets, received permission to catch somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 tonnes. The minister can give us the correct figure-because he was the one who lined up the contract-of offshore squid, which is worth somewhere in the vicinity $2 million. Naturally, this guarantee clause outraged Canadian processors, who said that foreign countries could promise big inshore purchases and high inshore prices, secure in the knowledge that inshore catches would fall short, and they could then catch the profitable offshore squid.
Canadians claim that in some cases the guarantee fish caught by Joint Trawlers have been sold. Where were they sold? They were sold in western European markets, undercutting Canadian exporters, and causing a direct loss of sales for Canadians. This is the result of the present minister's fishery policy, a policy which brought about a shortfall for Canadians in the fishing industry, in excess of $2 million, plus the loss of shore based employment.
The provincial fisheries ministers agreed, and I share their view, that there should be no direct sales involving guarantees-"Involving guarantees" are the two words that are basically important to what I am saying-unless prior consultation is had with the provinces. They have suggested that all conditions, including guarantees, be offered, as well, to Canadians firms. This gives the Canadian firm that little bit of leaway that has already been given away to the Soviets.
All we are asking for is the same opportunity for Canadian firms that the minister was so keen to give to east bloc countries; basically, to the Soviets. Just give us the same consideration that you gave to the Soviets when it comes to buying these quantities of mackerel, gaspergou and inshore fish. Do not leave the Canadian industry at a disadvantage. Treat us fairly, treat us squarely, and we will then be in a position-the minister waves his hand and says this is an unjust request.


An hon. Member:: That is true.
June 4, 1980


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, it is a feeling that is shared not only by me, not by one, not by two, but by three provincial fisheries ministers who have examined and re-examined what the minister did in an effort to determine the justice and the fairness of his policy. They have come up with a statement that they printed in the press, which indicated that they found this policy wanting to the tune of $2 million, wanting to the tune of taking away direct employment, shore employment, for the people of Atlantic Canada, some of whom I represent in this Elouse.


Bill Rompkey: That's the only thing they agree on.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) says, "That's the only thing they agree on". This is his view, but I am referring today to something that is of basic economic importance to Atlantic Canada. All 1 am asking for is a just and fair policy to put all of us upon an equal basis.
They have also asked that any participating foreign vessel be granted a permit from the respective provincial authority to fish in their own zone. 1 submit that possibly this is a request that would be endorsed again in agreement by all of the provincial premiers. I point out that this request was made by provincial fisheries ministers, but I feel certain that prior to meeting, prior to making these requests public, that they did so following consultation with their premiers and with the members of their own cabinet.


Roméo LeBlanc: Not Newfoundland.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Well, the minister states, "Not Newfoundland". I have no way of judging whether consultation was held between the fisheries minister of Newfoundland and his premier-


Roméo LeBlanc: He refused to gang up on me.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says that Newfoundland has refused to gang up on him. I will let him argue his case.
I submit to you that the present minister of fisheries, with his Gallic attitude and his keen intellect, is quite capable of taking care of himself, whether it be Newfoundland or Nova Scotia or New Brunswick or even tiny Prince Edward Island. No matter which group decides to gang up on the present minister of fisheries, 1 feel that he is quite capable of taking care of himself.


An hon. Member:: Not out west.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: My colleague, said "Not out west." All I am saying is that there is obviously considerable unrest in that part of Canada over present policies.
We felt, when the 200-mile limit was established, that we would gradually phase in Canadian operators, Canadian fishermen, whether they be inshore or midwater or offshore, and as we gradually phased in Canadians we were hoping that the government would gradually phase out the foreigners because, after all, the agreements were that we, as Canadians, would make fish available to foreigners that were surplus to our
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act needs. Unless we adopt a policy which will permit the construction of some freezer trawlers, and the conversion of some of our existing trawlers so that we can take the offshore squid and the silver hake and the capelin and the other soft species, the round nosed grenadiers-to name a few-unless we adopt a policy that will enable us to take these quantities of soft species, 1 submit that they will always, and for ever and a day, be surplus to our needs, and there will always be this requirement to give, not part of them, but all of them, away to others.
Under the leadership of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) when he was prime minister, we did start on a policy of licensing some freezer trawlers to take advantage of these soft species. The start was made, but all too little was done in the brief period. Time just simply did not permit a follow through-as 1 would have preferred-under that administration.
I mention these things, in closing, as some of the problems which should be examined very carefully by the minister, and I hope that when this bill is before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry we will have an opportunity to study the proposals and, 1 hope, some of my own suggestions, in more detail. Aside from the concerns 1 have expressed, I want to go on record as agreeing in principle with the bill and with its reference to the standing committee.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to be speaking on Bill C-28 today. As a matter of fact this is the first fisheries bill which has come before the House since the period of time before the last two elections. It is an important bill, not in its effect on fishermen but in its effect on banks. It would seem that this bill is more important to the banking community which insists on having loan guarantees to fishermen, small businessmen and farmers, rather than it is to the fishermen themselves.
I am pleased the minister recognized the increasing cost of equipment and vessels in the industry, and therefore has raised the ceiling on these loan guarantees to $150,000. In speaking on the Bank Act, my party was very critical of the banks for their failure to meet the needs of primary producers and small businessmen. With this increased loan guarantee, I think we may find more acceptance on the part of banks to lend money to fishermen who find meeting costs and high interest rates more and more difficult each year.
The purpose of the bill is to encourage, through taxpayer guarantee, the banks to help fishermen purchase or repair vessels, to buy new equipment or make necessary repairs, or to construct shore facilities. The minister referred to the number of claims against the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. It was an impressive figure. Only three-quarters of one per cent have been claimed by the banks in Canada over the 24-year history of this program.
However, 1 should like to look at the history a little bit and relate it to what is happening at the present time in the fishing industry. From the beginning of 1955 to March of 1979, $857,573 was paid to the banks in defaults under this loans

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act act. Although this may not seem to be a great cost to the Canadian treasury over 24 years, it does not show that of the $857,573 paid to the banks during that period of time, $700,000, or 81 per cent, was claimed in 1978-79. I think this is quite significant. Although 1 cannot confirm it, 1 would suggest that the claims in 1978-79 were most likely paid in British Columbia. The capitalization in that industry, and some of the failings in the salmon industry, have resulted in the Canadian government having to pay some of those loans.
It would be more appropriate if the minister would consult the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and suggest that there should be some amendments to the Bank Act which would place some obligation on the banking community to small businessmen, farmers and fishermen, rather than the government always having to give ironclad guarantees to the banking community. It is time the banking community in this country saw some of its responsibility to small businesses and primary producers.
The Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has helped a large number of fishermen in the past, and 1 am sure it will continue to do so in the future. Although my party disagrees with a system which must bribe banks to aid in the development of our fishing and farming potential, we recognize that this act is necessary until a government is elected that will obligate, through banking legislation, a more responsible role for banks operating in Canada.
Now 1 should like to turn my attention to the essence of this bill-to encourage investment in the fishing industry. Exciting prospects on the east coast of Canada call for massive expenditure in the coming years which will further increase our export of Canadian fish to an ever-increasing number of countries. The need for new vessels and shore installations to meet the challenge of higher quality products from ship to shore to market will demand new equipment on the seas and on our shores. Already there is growing interest for a large fleet renewal which will stimulate shipyard construction and the demand for government and private investment in new modern vessels.
Fleet renewal in Alantic Canada, whether through tax proposals in the previous Conservative budget, or through encouragement by provincial or federal government programs, must be done cautiously. The past Liberal minister of fisheries was a cautious man, as is the current one. He is able to wait long periods of time before he jumps into action. As a matter of fact sometimes he is so cautious that he does not act at all.
The minister will argue that a fleet development plan must be in place before his government will permit a large-scale renewal of the Atlantic fleet so our fishermen can better handle their catch-gut, bleed and ice their fish and handle them in a sanitary manner. Then they will receive a better price for the catch and Canada can sell to the more discerning consumers in Europe, Japan, and other importing nations. However, there is a need to act rapidly on a fleet development plan. I would encourage the minister to table in the House and make public a fleet development plan in the near future.
The industry in Atlantic Canada is in need of some direction as to the kind of fleet the minister will permit. They do not know whether it will continue to favour inshore fishermen, whether more offshore fleets should be established, including freezer trawlers, or whether in fact the minister has a plan at this time. Fishermen must be aware of the type of vessel mix the department sees developing, before a wholesale influx of unacceptable vessels takes place. They can only run into conflict with regulations and in allocation of stocks if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) does not table a fleet development plan soon.
The greatest danger for the east coast fishery is a repetition of the errors of the salmon industry in British Columbia. The dilemma of the British Columbia industry is accurately demonstrated by the figures published in the annual report of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act of 1978-79. In 1978-79 a total of $28,317,786 was guaranteed under the provisions of this act. Of the total, $23,515,041 went to British Columbia. This guarantee amounted to 81 per cent of the funds lent to British Columbia in 1978-79, while Quebec and the Atlantic provinces shared $4.5 million.
The minister is aware of the need for fleet development in Atlantic Canada, as well as the need for fleet restriction in British Columbia. He has not acted through Parliament on either of these critical issues despite the urgency on both coasts. I urge the minister to consider what is happening on the west coast of Canada in terms of fleet development. Also I urge him not to make the same mistake in Atlantic Canada by allowing the same amount of overcapitalization to occur there as occured in British Columbia.
The experiences of the late 1960s remain and are worsening despite the highly-touted licence limitation and buy-back program initiated by a former Liberal minister of fisheries. It was referred to as the "Davis" plan. The object was to reduce the number of fishermen and vessels in the salmon industry so that those remaining could expect a good economic return from his or her efforts. In fact many smaller fishermen and vessels were eliminated over the ten-year period of the plan, but the failure of the government to recognize growing technologies producing more effective gear, sophisticated electronic equipment and larger more powerful mobile vessels, has resulted in a far greater pressure on salmon stocks than before the buy-back program. Indeed the plan has made it questionable as to whether the managers can accurately and safely manage the stocks, faced with an ever-increasing fleet capacity.
The most damaging evidence of the failure of the minister to initiate programs to protect and enhance Pacific salmon is his inability to curtail the rapid capital investment in the salmon fleet. The public of Canada will invest close to $150 million in salmon enhancement between 1977 and 1984 during this first stage. The object of the program is to increase salmon production by 120 million pounds in the long term, over a period of approximately 30 years. Public support, both in dollars and in emotion, is great. The public in British Columbia feel that the
June 4, 1980

Salmon Enhancement Program is going to bring, and should return, much money and many jobs to the B.C. fishing industry. Public support then is there, and the expectations exist.
One of the premises on which the Salmon Enhancement Program was based is expressed in the following quotation from the Department of Fisheries and the Environment Publication "The Salmonid Enhancement Program", published in 1977:
It has been determined that the commercial salmon fishing and processing industry does not require any appreciable quantities of additional capital and operating inputs in order to double its outputs. The economic rationale of the program, however, demonstrates that industry will have to be constrained from making unnecessary new investment in response to the increased production, otherwise economic gains could be dissipated.
That was one statement in the premise to the Salmon Enhancement Program, that we really do not need to curtail more capital investment in the industry in British Columbia in order to harvest the output of the Salmon Enhancement Program over the long term. In spite of that, in 1978-79 another $23 million in loan guarantees by the federal government was placed in the salmon industry in British Columbia. That amount does not take into account the kinds of capital put into that industry without government guarantee.
An additional quotation from the same publication is as follows:
Investmcnl by government in salmonid enhancement could greatly improve the efficiency of the industry, assuring that additional capital inputs will be disciplined.
I would suggest that capital investment in the British Columbia salmon industry has not been disciplined. In fact the managers of the resource in British Columbia are having a tremendously difficult time managing these stocks simply because there are too many vessels in the industry for them to determine accurately what the catch should be. This results in frustration of the fisheries officers and managers in the industry in accurately predicting what kind of openings there should be, when the closings will be, as well as great difficulty in determining gear types that should be used to catch the salmon in British Columbia.
Fishermen are frustrated because they do not know from one year to the next what the gear regulations will be, and they do not know from one week to the next, in many cases, what openings there will be, where they will be, or what their quotas will be.
Figures for the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in British Columbia show a colossal failure by the present minister now and in the past to curtail the construction of vessels that are not needed to catch the fish available.
In another government report on licences on the west coast, referred to as the "Sinclair Report", published in 1978, it is estimated the fleet is three or four times larger than necessary to catch available stocks, yet the B.C. shipyards continue to construct larger and more efficient vessels for an industry that has seen fishermen forced out to pave the way for renewed stocks, stocks that to this point in time show little evidence of co-operation with the best laid plans of the minister.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
I would encourage the minister to look critically at the kinds of vessel construction which continues in British Columbia, and which in fact jeopardizes the Salmon Enhancement Program, and those kinds of exciting things the fishermen and the industry in general were expecting from him.
I feel, and most people in this House and across Canada feel, that good programs are something we are all supportive of, in this case the Salmon Enhancement Program. However, we cannot be expected to put money into salmon enhancement and also put more money into catching more and more of the salmon, dissipating that income from our salmon stocks.
On B.C.'s coast the problem results from too many efficient vessels and processing plants. The task for the department is to stop further investment until the need is demonstrated. The failure to do this to this point has contributed to the fall of all five species of Pacific salmon to below average returns for the past ten years.
An example of overfishing can be found in the Vancouver Sun of May 30, which referred to the Fraser River being closed to salmon fishermen. In our industry we are getting shorter and shorter periods of fishing time, particularly for the gillnet fleet, with more and more restrictions on the gillnet fleet, particularly for those people fishing on the Fraser River who were only given 17 days of openings last year and have had, 1 understand, just six days up to this time. Our seine fleet, because it is so large, is also being restricted in the number of days they can fish. The gross overcapitalization, if I may use that term, in the salmon industry, is restricting the number of days worked by fishermen, and is also bringing about difficulty to shore workers in very efficient plants.
The $23 million invested under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in 1978-79 only takes into account guaranteed investment. At the same time that we were spending $23 million to catch salmon we spent $19 million in British Columbia under salmon enhancement to produce the salmon, despite the warnings of the "Sinclair Report" and other government publications that we did not need more capital in the industry.
The complexity of the Atlantic coast fishery and the haste with which Canada must act to improve our handling of fish to improve our quality, increase our income and make inroads on world markets, make it essential to have a comprehensive development and marketing plan which would allow fishermen to reach the expectation they have in relation to the 200-mile zone and the ability of Canada to manage the fisheries in that zone.
A great deal of capital is needed on the Atlantic coast to change our fleet, to provide the quality of product that Japan, Europe, some of the developing nations and the United States require. This will mean a great deal of input.
The minister must not permit himself, however, to allow a wholesale fleet redevelopment plan without looking at the example in British Columbia. The minister must not permit himself the luxury of procrastination as he has in respect of the B.C. salmon industry. The urgency for a licensing program, a

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
fleet development plan, quality and marketing plans, and an attack on industrial and municipal pollution to satisfy the marine and aquatic environments of our coastal and inland fisheries, cannot be exaggerated. The minister can continue to exalt the virtue of Canadian fish and the potential, but he can no longer ignore the basic fact that decisions must be made now.
The bill before us today will provide additional borrowing power to fishermen. It is really a minor bill, but it is the first fisheries bill we have seen in this session. I hope it will not be the last. 1 hope the minister will come to this Parliament and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, submitting to us a plan for a licensing program and allowing the committee and this House to discuss that plan.
I hope that the minister will soon provide this House, the committee and the public, with a fleet development plan so that the fishermen and processors in Atlantic Canada are aware of the direction which this minister intends to take in terms of upgrading the fleet and providing the quality for which we are looking. Up to this time we have not seen those programs coming forward for discussion. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry only met just yesterday, and the steering committee met just this afternoon.
Hopefully the minister, when he is in front of that committee, will provide us with a timetable of some of the important programs which, 1 am sure, he has under consideration. While I am uncertain of the value of this bill to the west coast, considering the amount of capital that we have in that industry there, I do see a need for it in Atlantic Canada and in the prairie provinces. As a result of those considerations, my party will be giving support to this bill and hoping for its early passage.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I, too, would like to offer some observations on Bill C-28 which is presently before the House.


An hon. Member:: Positive criticism.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Of course my criticism is always positive. We think that the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act has been a relatively successful program. It is the kind of program that puts the burden of initiative upon the fishermen themselves. We commend the proposal in this legislation which will increase the ceiling in terms of individual loans. It will extend the repayment period from ten years to 15 years, and it will create a ceiling on loans over the next three-year period of $250 million.
It is interesting to note that in the last 23 years this program has been in existence, there has been some $125 million in loans granted under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. This bill will allow $250 million in additional loans over the next three-year period. I commend the government for that initiative. The default rate under this legislation has been less than 1 per cent, as the minister indicated in his opening
remarks. The cost of this program to the taxpayers of Canada has been less than $1 million over the past 23 years of its history.
As other speakers have indicated, we are prepared to see this bill through the second stage of debate as quickly as possible. But we do want to see the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that we might extract some responses and receive clarification on a number of questions which have already been put and others which I will be putting in the next few moments as well. Whereas we are supportive of the bill, there are some disappointments and reservations about the general thrust of this initiative.
I will quickly summarize those reservations, and then go into further detail. First of all, it is startling to me that there is no mechanism to determine or monitor where the loaned money is going. I will elaborate on that in further detail later. It is notable that in the annual report of the Fisheries Improvement Loans Board there is not much detail as to how the money which is being loaned under the provisions of this act is being related to the management policies of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
As my hon. colleague for South Shore indicated, in these times of wide fluctuations of interest rates, it is a concern that there are no guarantees written into the legislation or some requirement that banks guarantee interest rates over an extended reasonable period, such as three years, four years or five years, as compared to the present situation where the interest rate is held at 1 per cent over prime and fluctuates with the bank rate.
As the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) indicated, there is a conflict of policies in this program. On the one hand, particularly from the west coast perspective, this legislation is being used to loan large amounts of money for the development of a fishing fleet, while at the same time we are implementing increasingly restrictive management policies which frustrate the developmental instincts of fishermen. That is legitimate in its own right because it is consistent with the need to conserve and manage the resource as wisely as possible. There is a serious paradox in that there does not seem to be a tying together of the questions as to where this money is going and how it is being used to develop various sectors of the fishing fleets, particularly on the west coast, and how that ties together with the management policies of the department for which the minister is responsible.
There is a strong bias in the amount of money being loaned on the east coast vis-a-vis the west coast. If one looks at the recent annual report it is noteworthy that over 75 per cent of the loans made under this legislation went to British Columbia. Something less than 25 per cent of the loans went to Atlantic Canada, and a very small quantity went to the interior provinces. We in British Columbia have a genuine concern as to how this large amount of money, over $20 million, is being dispersed within British Columbia for the benefit of our fishing industry.
But the questions which I will ask now go beyong British Columbia. They are legitimate questions which must be asked
June 4, 1980

about the program in general. First of all, it would be very, very helpful if the minister, when we get to the committee stage, would provide information on who is borrowing this money. By that 1 mean a detailed breakdown on the division of loans as between various gear types and various licences that are carried by the vessels and ancilliary equipment which is purchased with these loans. It would be interesting to know how the money is being dispersed between various sized vessels.
It would also be pertinent if the minister could provide us with information as to the background of the borrowers. In his opening statement the minister indicated that the ordinary fisherman is benefiting with these loans. 1 believe that to be true because he has said so, but in British Columbia there is a suspicion that much of this capital is being used by various larger interests in the industry, corporate interests one might say, and in fact perhaps by speculative investors and professional people who have no history in the fishing industry.
I believe that it is very important that the minister supply, by tabling a detailed breakdown, information as to who is getting these loans and in what sums they are being dispersed. In particular I think it is important that we examine the extent to which this money might have been used, either directly or indirectly, to produce concentrations of ownership in the west coast fishing industry. I am thinking particularly of the recent takeover by B.C. Packers of the Canadian Fishing Company, the concern which many west coast fishermen feel about the tremendous leverage they command in the industry and the extent to which capital loaned under this program might, by one means or another, be used to benefit those kinds of takeovers and consolidations of ownership. As I indicated a moment ago, I think that in view of the tremendous frustration which fishermen in British Columbia have experienced over the complicated and increasingly tedious licencing system which is evolving, it is important to determine which type of licence classes are getting the loans under this program. As I hinted earlier, I think probably the most important question that the minister must answer is to what extent the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is exercising control over the disbursement of these rather large amounts of money, and to what extent that disbursement is matched to the management objectives of the department.
It was a surprise to me, upon doing some checking, to learn that there are no fisheries loans review boards at the federal level on either the east coast or the west coast. There are provincial review boards in Atlantic Canada. I would expect some kind of a tie of that nature to ensure that fishermen and the department have some say in how these loans are disbursed.
I would also like to raise what is to me a philosophical dilemma. 1 look to the economics of the fishing industry and I see that the uptake of loans under this act is very much lower in Atlantic Canada than it is in the case of moneys needed to develop the west coast fishing industry. In contrast, I see large amounts of direct capital assistance going to the east coast fishery through the small craft harbours projects, gear subsidy
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
programs, vessel subsidy programs and the like. 1 do not condemn that particularly, but I wonder what tVie minister has to say about this dichotomy between the east coast fishery and the west coast fishery. Is it perhaps that the east coast fishery is so dependent on grants and federal largesse that it does not need to seek out loans and take the additional risk that entails? If that is the case I think we all want to understand, if this is a matter of government policy, what the implications of it are.
I believe that the loans route is a commendable route, and when the government can assist with risk taking, to a degree that is desirable. Unfortunately this government has not agreed to pursue the tax incentive route by introducing writeoff provisions in the Income Tax Act. This was proposed by the former minister of finance in the Conservative government in order to encourage investment in the construction of vessels and related equipment in a direct sense, not by depending on government but by allowing the private sector interests to pursue their initiatives and to reward that by some form of tax credit.
As was mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alber-ni, there is a problem in the B.C. fishing industry in particular, regarding overcapitalization. The minister is very familiar with that problem. We have many large vessels and, of course, a much larger number of small vessels. The large vessels are capable of harvesting the lion's share of most species of fish on the west coast. They are equipped with sophisticated sounding gear, powered winch gear and all kinds of ancillary equipment, to make them a very powerful force in the west coast fishing industry.
I would be alarmed if 1 were to learn that many of the larger vessels, particularly seiners, were those that are benefiting most under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. We do have the dilemma of overcapitalization. However, fishermen also mortgage their homes and borrow large amounts of money, as much as $250,000, to build larger vessels. The viability of those investments is predicated on stable markets and a stable management policy.
Conflicting with that, in recent years we have seen the continual rearrangement of management policies, relating to licensing in particular, to the extent that the fisherman exists in a world of uncertainty and is subject to the vulnerability of the boom and bust cycle which prevails because of natural factors or inadequate management information on which licensing policies and decisions are based.
1 believe that the management policies that the department has created and developed ever since the days of the Davis plan, exacerbate the problems we face. On the one hand we are confronted with a 200-mile limit and we want to develop those new resources consistent with good management policies in a way which will be to the net benefit of fishermen. On the other hand the various actions of the department in recent years have frustrated and dispirited individual fishermen who need to invest in rather large vessels and associated gear.

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act Halibut is an example. We have an agreement with the United States involving halibut caught in Alaskan waters. That led to the closing of an area of the fishery in which a number of investors were just embarking. The federal government was caught in the ludicrous position of buying back gear and buying fishermen out of that industry, perhaps financed with funds that had originally been loaned under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The minister shakes his head, and 1 would be pleased to get information to the contrary.
I have a secondary problem consequential to that halibut agreement which might be of interest to the minister and to the House. As a consequence of the gear buy-back program, a lot of gear is being sold through Crown Assets Disposal at less than half the market value. Small manufacturing enterprises engaged in the business of building gear-drums, power winches, net handling gear and the like-in British Columbia are frustrated because gear is now being dumped on the market by this government which is supposed to be interested in their welfare. The government's decision to restrict the halibut fishery results from what I believe was a rather hastily conceived and poor agreement with the Americans regarding northern halibut. It frustrates the entrepreneurs who service the fishing industry.
There is also a problem with black cod and other forms of bottom fish which are presumably available to west coast fishermen as a result of the 200-mile limit. The information on stock levels is inadequate. No projection of future yields is available as a basis on which to predicate investment-investment which might well be funded under this program.
We also have the very serious problem of the depletion of herring stocks. The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) has a deep and personal interest in this problem. The consequence of the depletion of the herring stocks was the closing of the herring roe fishery this spring. I wonder how many of those powerful herring seine boats were financed with moneys obtained under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


An hon. Member:: It was a strike.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It was not entirely a strike, it was a question of quotas and stock levels resulting from overfishing in bonanza years which the department permitted in years gone by, and which built up expectations. Now those people who may have mortgaged their homes or incurred commitments under this act are hard pressed to make the payments against those loans.
I now come to a very important problem, Mr. Speaker, that relating to Chinook salmon. A decision was taken just last week by the department, in the name of the minister, to close the Chinook salmon fishery in the Fraser River. That decision will impose tremendous hardship on the small boat owners who gillnet fish in the Fraser River. No similar sanctions have been imposed on the seine boat owners, the trailers or the sport fishing community. The squeeze is being put on one sector of the industry. I should like to know how many of their vessels have been financed through loans made under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. The squeeze is not being applied against the larger vessels nor indeed against the American
vessels which intercept the Chinook salmon beyond the boundaries of our territorial control. We have not found an acceptable solution to this because the department have not resolved the Canada-U.S. fisheries treaty question on the west coast.
There are a variety of paradoxes here, Mr. Speaker. They all point to the very important need for loans, for financial incentive and initiatives relating to the development of the fishery to be properly and carefully integrated with the management objectives of the department. I would welcome any information the minister could offer which would clarify the genuine concern that I have. There is a definite need to complete the white paper policy review initiated by his predecessor in the Conservative government. This would have led to a fisheries development policy for the 1980s. Many of his departmental officials put much effort into this, and the people of Canada made a considerable contribution to it. The problems we have heard of this afternoon point to the need for a policy paper which addresses these very important questions.
There must be more effective consultation. The Sinclair and Levelton reports on licensing have been circulating for almost two years. They deal with difficult conservation questions which we should consider at the standing committee level. 1 submit that is where members who represent fishing industries can make a contribution and assist the minister in resolving this important paradox which comes from taking a development oriented approach to the industry on the one hand and, on the other hand, talking about restricting, conserving and restraining the natural initiatives of fishermen.
I hope the minister will consent to allow the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to review the Sinclair and Levelton reports. We are not too far along with that initiative so far, but I believe the members of that committee could be of great help to the minister in getting out to the regions and listening in detail to the fishermen.
In closing, from surface impressions at least, 1 see a rather haphazard approach being taken to the disbursement of funds under the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act. I think the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must be held accountable for rationalizing their management initiatives against their desire to provide capital for the building and development of our fishing industry.
1 believe that we must have some type of review process and some reporting method so that the fishermen of Canada and members of Parliament can view the ways in which these moneys are being disbursed and the way in which they integrate with the management policies of the department. 1 would hope that the minister will comment on that recommendation this afternoon. In any event, we certainly look forward to pursuing it at greater length when this bill reaches committee stage, which I am sure it will.
June 4, 1980



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to motions for the purpose of moving concurrence in the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, notice of which appears in today's order paper on page 4.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary seeks unanimous consent to revert to motions for the purpose he has described. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I move:
That the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments presented to the House on Monday, June 2, 1980, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. LeBlanc that Bill C-28, to amend the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is certainly one which should go to committee and which should be discussed therein at quite some length. Like many other government intentions, the act finds itself in a position as it stood prior to the introduction of this amendment in which it was impossible to make a significant loan to a boat owner whose boat might require extensive improvement. For instance, in the Bay of Fundy herring industry it would have been impossible to put in a good refrigeration system in an old boat within the $75,000 limit, and I question whether $ 150,000 will adequately do the job for some of the larger boats that are afloat today. Therefore I believe that we are failing to
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
recognize, even with the limits outlined here, the need of a modern fishing industry.
We have discovered, much to our chagrin, that many of the fish packed or otherwise processed in this nation have not met the quality standards to which some of our foreign potential buyers are accustomed. Some of us have had meetings in parliamentary committees, for instance with European buyers, and we have been advised that our quality does not necessarily meet that to which others are accustomed. Therefore our markets are tenuous. We must have a policy which will improve the capability of our fishing fleet as well as of our processing industry to deliver the quality which is required to sustain the markets and to extract the price which would be available under proper quality circumstances. However, the $150,000 will do some things for some people, but in this structure they will have to be quite small things.
I am concerned by virtue of the fact that, as the fishing industry modernizes and as inflation gallops along behind-or stays out in front in many cases-fishermen have not been able to qualify for loans. The fishermen have not been able to get loans and they have been denied the privilege of safe and adequate fishing vessels. I am saying quite frankly to the minister that I hope he will give some consideration to increasing the size of this limit as it is presently offered.
There are good grounds for making this statement because a joint presentation of the Atlantic provinces to the minister implied some time ago that in 1977 we were looking at a $900 million-plus requirement to upgrade the Atlantic fleet so that we might take proper advantage of the 200-mile limit. When one couples that with the demand that the inshore fleet must improve its capability of delivering quality, we are looking at a lot of money required to do the job.
As a party or as a government we had proposed there become a bank type of facility which would finance the construction of these boats for individuals or groups of individual fishermen so that they could take advantage of this opportunity. The industry would then end up in a vertically integrated structure on the east coast of Canada as it has in many other spheres of our industry. We have many problems, and 1 hope that we may get a chance to discuss them in greater detail when we get into committee stage on this bill. There are a number of items which we should have an opportunity to discuss. I do not think that we should compromise the independence of the fisherman. We should give him an opportunity to buy a new boat and I think that this is a provision we should have.
One of the problems with the fishing industry, as with the agricultural industry, is the fact that the federal government over the last 15 years has chosen to withdraw itself as a participant in the financial structure to keep the industries in place. As a result, the provinces have had to move in. Some might have moved in anyway, because there are provinces that are inclined to top load the agricultural, the fishing and other industries. I submit that it was the vacating of the historic federal responsibility that has enhanced, encouraged and

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
expedited the interference of the provincial structures into the financing of the fishing fleet.
The federal government should take a long hard look at trying to arrange with the provinces for an equitable opportunity. Province A should not be pitted against province B by the creation of a more attractive loan structure in one province over another. As a result of that, certain ship owners are finding it convenient to move from one provincial jurisdiction to another, taking their boat and their licence with them. This leaves processing facilities behind. It takes the employment with it or leaves unemployed behind, and it is becoming a rather serious social problem as one province competes with the other.
Why do we not give some consideration to making this a bill which might replace the competitive financial proposition placed before fishermen by one province after another in order to attract that industry away from one province and into another? The transfer of a fishing capability from one community to another leaves an isolated community which may well become a ghost town. I think there must be more co-operation between the federal government and the provincial governments.
As has been mentioned earlier, the offshore sales conducted and negotiated by the minister were not conducted with the consent or the approval of the provinces. There is no excuse, in view of the commitment of fisheries ministers in the past 15 years, including that little recess in which we had our opportunity to govern, for a minister making a hasty decision and then confronting provincial counterparts with it, having given them no opportunity to consult. This is wrong. The minister decided that he knew who should market the fish, and he knew who should buy it. He knew everything that ought to be done. Serious objection was expressed by all interested in the fishing industry: if there were to be offshore sales, guarantees should not be supplied by the government and, certainly, any such guarantees should not be in the form of an opportunity to catch fish additional to the quantity already allocated to foreign sources. It is not good for this to happen.
The uncertainty which exists in the fishing industry throughout many of our coastal communities is intolerable, and 1 believe it could be corrected. We are predicting larger catches of various species of fish and I should like to discuss the herring seining operation, for instance. We have consistently reduced the quota which the herring seining fleet can catch and we have constrained that sector of the industry from going to certain historic grounds in which it used to fish. This is perhaps because Quebec thought the Fundy fleet should not be up in the Gulf, or maybe because Newfoundland thought it should not be off Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia people thought it should not fish off Nova Scotia, ignoring the fact that the seining fleet had created an ongoing year-round fishing operation to which the coast had not been accustomed before.
If it be necessary that the minister accept the pressures of politics from certain areas within Canada, then it becomes equally necessary that when there are additional quotas of any species available, if you rob Peter you had better pay him back. And don't just rob Peter to pay Paul. You had better pay Peter back. For instance, some of these seining boats were only allowed to be bought, built and financed by regulation of the federal government which stated, "You cannot build a boat unless it is licensed both to seine and to be a dragger as well." They were able for years to make their living from herring seining alone. They were never told, "If you do not use those dragger licences you are going to lose them." Consequently there are boats which originally had more than one licence but which had no need to operate under those other licences. The owners are now told they cannot operate under those other licences; they cannot renew them and they will not be able to make a living.
I cite this as an example because 1 believe there are fishers of other species who are likely to find themselves brought under constraint. I submit there has to be additional licensing opportunity so that, where possible, these boats could be used to make a living for a very proud group of people who have been accustomed to making their living in a hard way but who are now being deprived of that possibility. All these things have to be taken into consideration in the management of supply. If you deprive a guy of one privilege, let us look around and find him another one as we increase the total allowable catches, or, barring this, let us make it possible for him to participate in another fishery because, as I look through the charts which the government has provided, and see what has been the total allowable catch, what has been the historic catch, what has been the foreign catch, and what is the predicted catch, I find that there is a greater fishing opportunity with respect to a large number of species. Perhaps some of those who were deprived of their present living could be extended the privilege of fishing in the areas in which quotas are to be increased for other species-it may be haddock, it may be halibut, it may be cod. Let us not leave these people completely isolated and hung out to dry to go broke. Maybe the dragger licences could be extended to the seining fleet which cannot make a living under existing quotas.
Mr. Speaker, we have talked about a lot of things, including the salmon enhancement program on the west coast. I should like to say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that we need a salmon enhancement program on the east coast. 1 recently had a conversation with the president of the Bay of Fundy Salmon Fishermen's Association and he told me that when he was a boy he and his father had fished salmon in the Bay of Fundy. As a boy, 1 knew there was a good opportunity for sportsmen all along the Saint John River Valley. But a low point was reached in the twenties and it was during this period that the Government of Canada undertook an intensive program of the development of fish hatcheries. They built one in the community in which 1 lived, another one 50 miles north of there, and another 150 miles south. They were scattered over New Brunswick. They were built in Bedford, Nova Scotia, and

June 4, 1980

Margaree, Nova Scotia, among other places. That man reported to me that within a reasonable period of time, because of this intensive effort on the part of salmon hatcheries, in the scattered hatcheries throughout Atlantic Canada, the salmon population did in fact return to the Bay of Fundy to a point at which it was again a viable fishery.
I beseech the minister to examine in a practical way the increment in salmon population which occured when salmon hatcheries were developed-salmon and trout, for that matter. This may be contrary to some of the recommendations he has received from a strictly scientific point of view. The little hatchery near my home hatched up to 2.5 million salmon eggs. The little streams in which I went fishing as a boy soon became populated with "shiners", fingerling salmon which went to sea and returned, fully grown, in adequate numbers to bring about both a professional fishing industry in the Bay of Fundy and excellent sports fishing in the streams of New Brunswick.
Now this little hatchery in my community has been closed down, phased out. It has a good water supply. It is a good facility. I wish the minister would at least consider reactivating this hatchery and experimenting in a stream or streams in New Brunswick with this one hatchery, if with no others, to determine whether or not the older fishermen in the Saint John-Bay of Fundy area are right when they say that hatcheries will, indeed, increase the number of salmon in the streams of New Brunswick and in the Bay of Fundy. I have already written to the minister on this subject and I hope he will give it serious consideration.
All the things we may wish to do with regard to financing the industry and preserving the stocks will be in vain unless we improve our surveillance program. I had the privilege of discussing this program off the Atlantic coast with a chap who worked on it for the summer. He gave me some rather startling information. In his summer employment he did not see the gear hauled on a foreign fishing vessel to know what came ashore. He did not see one haul. He spent his summer on a boat which did not see the foreign fishing vessels which he inspected haul their gear from the water. I think this would be something for the press to pursue. 1 do not have all the information I would like to have on this, but I think the press should do some very careful interviewing of people who have worked aboard the surveillance vessels off the east coast of Canada. They are slow. The fishing vessels are far faster than the surveillance vessels. Some fishing vessels have sailed beyond them and were not apprehended getting out of our boundary waters and into American waters where we could not apprehend them.
The inspection of freezer boats is such that once a boat is half loaded, what is it loaded with? How are you going to get into the holds to determine what in fact is in them? I am very skeptical of the surveillance on the high seas as I watch the surveillance on the streams. I have pleaded with the minister, I believe every year since 1972, to put the type of surveillance on
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
the streams of eastern Canada which would put the fear of the law into those who are poachers and on who I lay the blame for a large portion of the depletion of our salmon population.
It is all right to say that the native people on the streams have taken them all. They have taken some, but when we know through the grapevine that there is an organized marketing structure through which poachers work to get rid of their illegal catch, and that is marketed with good returns to those who caught the fish illegally, then there has to be something seriously wrong with the enforcement system. I plead with the minister. I think I made an element of progress with his immediate predecessor with respect to what should be done for surveillance of these streams and the penalizing of those who poach upon them, and I hope that this too will not have been lost by a change of government.
This bill certainly should go to committee. It should be discussed. It has some very important aspects, and it gives us in this House who are interested in fishing one of very few opportunities to discuss the industry. I think we can under this bill.
One of the things we have learned is that if we would put our foreign fishing licences into the hands of some countries which would provide markets, we might indeed get better trading opportunities. Western Europe is prepared, I think, to make some duty concessions if we are prepared to put some of the foreign fishing licences into the hands of European nations. We might have to take them from those who already have them, because I am not suggesting that we give additional foreign fishing capability to foreign fishing fleets. Rather, we should reduce it, but there is reasonable indication that it becomes negotiable if we place our foreign licences in the proper hands.
Once again I wish to repeat what the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) said with respect to tax credits. If ever there was a hazardous industry which has cyclical opportunities of market and fish runs, it has to be the fishing industry. It and agriculture are the two riskiest industries in Canada. I think there should be the greatest opportunity possible for tax credits to make it possible for fishermen to feel that they have a future in the purchase of vessels which would be capable of earning them a living regardless of their cost. They should not be burdened with 20, 30 and 40 year mortgages as we are when we buy houses. Rather, they should be granted an opportunity so that within a short period of time they could pay for them. This is not a loss of tax money. It is a deferral of the collection of tax because, once it is paid for and once it is depreciated, then the government gets its pound of flesh in full fashion. I think this is an important and imperative thing to do.
I look forward to meeting the minister in committee, discussing this bill to a greater extent and getting to some of the finer points of some of the problems which we have on the east coast which need attention.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I did not realize I had percolated to the top of the list.

June 4, 1980
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
I just want to poach in a few comments of concern and take this opportunity as a member from the west coast who has been involved in fishing. Actually I was a gillnetter at one time trying to get myself through university, and when I am out on the coast and on the water I do use the opportunity to have dialogue with fishermen. 1 visit the up-coast fishing plants. I stop and have great evenings on some of the fishery patrol vessels and with the people clearing streams. I get a grassroots feel for the problems out there.
Before moving on to that, I would just like to remind the House that this bill is needed at this point in time, but it should be part of the over-all review in terms of credit and the type of financial service the Government of Canada is making available to the various sectors of the Canadian community.
As the minister said in his opening remarks, we are now moving into guarantees, and the guarantees are moving from $80 million up to some $250 million. That in itself is not serious. The cost of these guarantees is about three-quarters of 1 per cent, but the Federal Business Development Bank is also substantially involved in guarantee programs, the cost of which before the recent rash of bankruptcies was running at about one half of 1 per cent and is probably now up over I per cent.
We are getting ourselves into a downstream liability under these guarantee programs, and I think we in the House should ask ourselves just what contingent liability we are placing upon tomorrow's taxpayers and upon the treasury of the country.
We are getting into guarantees like $200 million with regard to the Chrysler Corporation. We see possibly $250 million as the expanse of this program for east and west coast fisheries, which benefits many people. It is true that the Chrysler program will benefit workers a couple of years down the stream, but we are also in a patchwork quilt dilemma with the various programs we keep sustaining and extending for another couple of years. The review that the Minister of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Lapointe) has told us about, and which has been in the works now for some time, is a very important review, and this particular subject matter should be part of that review as it fits into this whole question of the types of financial services delivered to the community and the contingent liability we are getting into, in the form of guarantees.
One of the things which has concerned me is the fact that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans seems to be moving into a marketing stance on both coasts. I am not familiar with the detailed aspects regarding the east coast, but 1 do know that everything we harvest on the west coast is marketed and sold. I suppose it is because I am on this side of the House, I am a Conservative and 1 believe in limited government and that there is a better lifestyle and more efficiency in activities widely dispersed in the private sector, that I keep questioning why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans should be moving in and making threats to move into marketing when 1 think the job it is doing in the enhancement and protection of species deserves examination. That should be where the total effort is concentrated, and if the department needs more resources in terms of protecting, enhancing and developing the
species, that is where its activities should be concentrated, particularly on the west coast.
The spawning streams in the state of Washington have been wiped out. When we see what Mount St. Helens has done, we know what nature can do to nature in terms of distortions. True enough, British Columbia and the B.C. coast are more stable geologically than that particular area down there. Perhaps we should be moving into hatcheries that are at the mouth of our river systems so that we can protect the species. As the minister knows, the protection of the species, or the escape of the species into the spawning grounds now, has an added pressure on it and we have to allow more and more of the salt water escapement to move upstream in order to adjust to new harvesting pressures that are on the upstream spawning grounds.
I am not knowledgeable enough to enter a debate on this, but it troubles me when I see, up in the rivers and in the hinterland of British Columbia, power boats and gillnets. It is putting a pressure on that is very difficult to control, and it causes factions and pressures between the native peoples, who have a right to the usufructuary rights of the land. I will stand and argue and debate that, but here is a problem that has to be resolved, and we have to be moving in with the federal knowledge, with the provinces, to try to do that. Perhaps some of this problem can be resolved if we move into the technology of hatcheries down lower at the mouth of the Fraser river end of our streams.
Let us consider herring. One of the things that has truly troubled many of us on the west coast is what we have done to our herring. It was not the Department of Fisheries that outlawed pit lamping in the gulf of Georgia. It was the skippers of the seine boats who outlawed that rape of the water. They would go out there and set their seines, and the pit lamps would be down there, and they would pull these seines in, and they could pull up juvenile salmon, not herring. Every time you gather in a ball of fish like that, the mortality is tremendous.
We need a lot of interface and a lot of talk to prevent some of the things we are doing to ourselves on the west coast. But when we allow a harvesting operation to move right up into the spawning beds of herring, right up on to the kelp, right up on to the rocks where they are about to spawn, and we take that resource away, particularly in light of what most of us on the west coast feel who know the waters, when you allow that, you are putting a pressure on that resource at which we should really be taking a good hard look.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: There is a big sports fishing industry out on the west coast, and I am a sports fisherman. But perhaps we must take a really good look at disallowing the use of herring in the sports fishery. I can tell you that there are little bays and coves all around with sand bottoms, which formerly had tremendous, boiling populations of herring and feeder fish, and
June 4, 1980

people who are making their living from it sweep these bays out. Where you used to be able to go in and jig for your bait and put it on a hook and catch your salmon, there are bays now where you cannot jig for herring because there just are not any herring there. I took to my colleague on this side of the House, formerly the Minister of Fisheries, a series of letters expressing deep concern from residents on the coast as to what had happened to that little bay and this little inlet and this little area here that historically had had herring in it. That herring had now gone because they had been swept out.
We just cannot remove that feeder source for our salmon from the Gulf of Georgia, and I make an appeal to the minister that we look at it very hard, that our very talented people in fisheries out there should really be devoting themselves to the protection of the resource.
When I presented these letters and this concern to the former minister of fisheries in the last Parliament, I got a letter back, very detailed, but it was pure bureaucratic pap, sir. Even the former minister has had to realize that the concern which was being expressed in the letters that I submitted to him has turned out now, in fact, to be true. Yet there was a defensive letter written for him that he passed on to me, that 1 passed on out there, and of course I got it back with comments on it that would not be fit to repeat in the House.
I would plead, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister, that we give very serious concern to what we are doing to the feeder stocks out there. This also moves into the lack of common sense-or perhaps there is common sense to it, but nobody on the west coast can understand why the department of fisheries was asking the previous minister to put a limit on 20 inch fish. In other words, if you caught anything under 20 inches in the sports fishery, you had to throw it back. That makes no sense at all, and if there is scientific rationale for that kind of regulation to be placed on the people on the west coast, we have to understand the reasons why. I think that if people are given the reasons why these regulations are drafted and needed, and if they can understand them, particularly in light of the call from people like Mike Crammond, who, for 20 years has been warning us that we are wiping out the herring fishery of the Gulf of Georgia. That call in the wilderness has always been denied by the officials in the department of fisheries, yet I think that if you are going to be honest with yourself today, and you go out on to that coast, you will find that the herring population inside the gulf is indeed threatened and must limit the availability of feed for the fish returning to the spawning grounds.
1 would urge, through you, sir, that the minister look seriously at resolving the dispute with the International Salmon Commission because there are engineers sitting there, frustrated, waiting to implement some of the technology that is sitting there, in terms of hatcheries, in terms of improving the breeding of species. Every time I sit down in a boat or on a dock or in a yacht club, I hear these frustrations, and I think that there would be unanimity in this House, from all parties, in urging the minister to move and deliver resource into hatcheries and start protecting the feeder systems that these returning salmon need in order to mature in the gulf.
Fisheries Improvement Loans Act
Surveillance has been mentioned on the east coast. I would say that we also need to look seriously at a merger or an overlapping of responsibilities between the resources of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Transport, the Coastguard, and the Department of Fisheries. I think we can make far more effective use of our physical plant if we get into a merger there. True, the inspection process now, for the new international role we are playing in trying to protect the species, and hence, the continuity of harvest within the 200 mile limit, requires that we be equipped in a modern and efficient manner.
In terms of marketing, if I might come back to that subject, why is the SaltFish Corporation now being moved into the marketing of frozen fish? Is the information that reaches me true, that they have received some $15 million for their involvement in this? Is there a legal status for the SaltFish Corporation to enter into the frozen fish market? Perhaps the minister, in reply in the second reading debate, could shed some light on that, because I seriously question why a Crown corporation that was put in place for a specific need should have its marketing activities expanded when the private sector is equipped and is equipping itself, and is quite capable of handling that aspect of the fishery market.


An hon. Member:: No $15 million.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: No $15 million? That is good news, then. Perhaps the minister will just advise us why that corporation is being expanded and, if it is not $15 million, are there any dollars being put into that aspect?
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: I recognize that Mr. Speaker is entitled to see whom you will in their place, but I want to point out to the House that when the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) completed his intervention and took his seat, I rose in my place to be recognized. If I am not mistaken, 1 believe 1 was the only one who had risen, and Mr. Speaker did not see fit to recognize me. As I say, I realize that is for Mr. Speaker to determine, but I wanted to report and record that fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. To pay due consideration to the comments of the hon. member, throughout this afternoon the Chair has been having some difficulty because reports have reached this place that, on the one hand, there was a disposition to put this bill through second reading before six o'clock, and on the other hand, increasingly larger numbers of members have approached the Chair to be on the list.
As to the problem raised by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), I think he will find, if he consults with members of his own party, that he will have the explanation as to why he was not recognized at that time.
It being after six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 5, 1980