1980-10-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing importance to the people of British Columbia. In view of the fact that more than 30,000 British Columbians have now signed a petition opposing the implementation of any form of excise tax against the export of natural gas and hydroelectric power from their province; and whereas many thousands of those signatures were tabled in the House of Commons last Friday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That the federal government be directed to abandon immediately any plan it has to impose any form of export tax on the natural resources of British Columbia, as any such tax would violate the terms of British Columbia's entry into confederation and can only serve to fuel the flames of secession which are already burning in British Columbia.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That this House instruct the government House leader to refrain from the kind of open minded ness which would urge closure to be used after only 24 hours of debate in which more Liberal members than PCs were allowed to speak.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, in view of the situation in Chile concerning the systematic violation of human rights, and considering the fact that Chileans in both Canada and Chile are suffering hardship because of the Canadian government's decision to stick with the previous government's order in council which exempted Chile from the list of countries whose citizens do not require a visa to enter Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for employment and immigration to revoke this totally inappropriate order in council so that once again Chileans can apply for refugee status.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the concern in this House that all members who wish will be able to speak and move substantive amendments when the constitutional resolution is reported from committee, and given the government House leader's commitment last Friday to show the same openmindedness as he demonstrated in the first stage of consideration of the constitutional resolution, I


POSSIBLE REFINERY TAX-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under Standing Order 43. It has come to my attention that a high ranking government official advised the cabinet through at least one minister to implement an energy refinery tax rather than impose an energy export tax. In a highly politicized memo written by the government's communications co-ordinator, Mr. Mack Erb, to the Minister of State for Multicultural-

October 27, 1980
ism (Mr. Fleming)-for the minister's eyes only-Mr. Erb suggests among other things:
-the export tax would negate any potential acceptance on the constitutional front-
-Marc l.alondc will have to eat crow as a result-
And he should. And:
-the Liberals must break election promises on energy matters-
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That the Minister of State for Multiculturalism be instructed to make a statement on motions today regarding this matter in order to shed light on this most important of issues before he embarks on any further partisan brainwashing campaigns using taxpayers' money.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to western Canadians. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) are constantly pooh-poohing western alienation and dissatisfaction. Rather than being conciliatory, their remarks are inflammatory. After all, these are the same people who made the statement that separatism is dead, just before the election of the PQ government in Quebec.
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That they cease and desist fuelling the fires of western alienation with ill-conceived, provocative statements and be asked to table in the House public opinion polls commissioned by this government dealing with the perception of federal-provincial postures and attitudes by the people of western Canada.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the release of Statistics Canada's analysis of income tax in 1978,
revealing that 2,316 Canadians earning more than $50,000 paid no income tax, and of these 96 earned more than $200,000, a fourfold increase since 1977, and in light of the statement of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) that "middle and upper income groups in this country are bearing a disproportionate amount of the tax burden", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House honour those middle and upper income Canadians who have successfully avoided the payment of any tax by bestowing upon them a "Golden Loophole Award"; that those who apologize for this systematic avoidance be made honorary members of the "Golden Loophole Club"; and that the President of the Treasury Board be made the honorary chairman of the "Golden Loophole Club".


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on what I know the Prime Minister will consider a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is ramming through his constitutional package to suit his own personal timetable and that he used closure in order to make a luncheon date in New York, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the Prime Minister do forthwith report to this House on what must have been a luncheon of most urgent and pressing necessity.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, the urgent and pressing nature of my motion under Standing Order 43 arises because of the introduction tomorrow evening of the budget and, therefore, I hope it will have the unanimous consent of this House.
As it is widely reported that the budget will be eliminating indexation as far as it affects the calculation of personal income taxes, and as this will hurt low income Canadians in
October 27, 1980

particular, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House expresses its firm opposition to any such proposal and to any tampering, meddling, tinkering or fiddling with the indexation provisions as they affect personal income tax.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

THE LATE HON. JUDY V. LaMARSH


EXPRESSION OF SYMPATHY TO FRIENDS AND RELATIVES
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is with grief that we have heard of the death of the Hon. Judy LaMarsh, Privy Councillor and a former member of this House.
I am sure that all hon. members will want me to express publicly our sympathy to her friends and relatives.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last Friday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the Minister of Finance whether a story in Friday's The Globe and Mail by Jeff Carruthers resulted from a budget leak and expressed concern that such a leak could, and I quote "have repercussions on the stock market".
Careful reading of the article shows the hon. member's real concern since it reveals that secret consultations were held between the NDP and the government regarding the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: You are really getting desperate!


Harvie Andre: It seems that the NDP are prepared to accept Mr. Carruthers' article, at least partially.
Can the Minister of Finance indicate to the House that this new organic understanding has reached the point where there are these discussions or consultations with their new partners, albeit surreptitiously, not only on the constitution but also on the budget?
Oral Questions


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, there was a time when I used to conduct secret consultations with members of the New Democratic Party, but I have not done that in connection with the budget. I rather regret those exchanges which were so beneficial for Parliament.


John Edward Broadbent: That was when you were progressive-six years ago.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question. On Friday the Minister of Finance refused to categorically deny that there has been a budget leak when the subject was broached to him by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It was a very serious accusation. I do not know now if the minister has made a categorical denial or not that there had been discussions with the New Democratic Party. We certainly know that there have been some secret discussions on some very important national questions. Would he here and now categorically deny that there has been any leak or that there have been discussions with the New Democratic Party on questions of a budgetary nature?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in categorically denying that there have been discussions with the New Democratic Party or with any other group with respect to the contents of the budget, except the normal representations that are made by interested groups prior to the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had no representation, except by way of radio, from the New Democratic Party as to what they would like to see in the budget.


John Edward Broadbent: It is pretty secret.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the alleged budget leak, it seems to me, Madam Speaker, that it is premature to characterize any statement as a leak until we see the budget. The day following the presentation of the budget the hon. member may wish to complain about the article in question or maybe he will not, but that opportunity will be available to him.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, while accepting the minister's word that he has not had these secret consultations, I would point out that he does need to have consultation in order to learn that the New Democratic Party is opposed to indexing and is in favour of de-indexing the income tax system.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Does this new concurrence with the New Democratic Party mean that the minister feels that, with the support of the New Democratic Party, he now has the necessary support to go ahead with this Draconian measure which is most unfair, immoral and improper?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe I will have support for the budget, enough to carry it through the House without the support of the New Democratic Party.
4098

October 27, 1980
Oral Questions


INQUIRY RESPECTING OIL PRICING ARRANGEMENT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. In an August 2 story in the now defunct Ottawa Journal, the Minister of Finance said that a budget is virtually impossible without an oil pricing agreement. In this story the minister said he could not make up a budget without knowing how much money will be coming into the federal coffers, and that without a firm agreement on pricing he cannot be certain about federal income.
Given that no such agreement has been reached, can the minister tell the House what pricing arrangement will be incorporated in the minister's budget tomorrow night?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Not yet, Madam Speaker.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, the Saskatchewan Power Corporation is presently involved in a lawsuit with TransCanada PipeLines in the Supreme Court of Canada in which the constitutionality of the Petroleum Administration Act is in question. Will the Minister of Finance give us his undertaking that this government will not use the Petroleum Administration Act to impose an oil pricing regime while the question of its legality is subjudice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 will give the hon. member's representation careful consideration.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hard-working Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who I see is busy at his correspondence. During the campaign of recent vintage, the minister promised that the establishment of an industrial strategy would be the top economic priority of the government, no doubt a promise made just after a Goldfarb poll came in. The minister himself placed before the cabinet last summer a 71-page confidential economic strategy document, a copy of which I have here.


Mr. Nielsen:: More consultations.


Harvie Andre: You are on the mailing list.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering recent statements by the Minister of State for Economic Development, who resides in the other place, have made it clear that he wants to do everything possible to emasculate an industrial strategy, would the minister tell the House whether his program has been approved yet by cabinet or whether, in contrast, the appointed senator in the other place who serves as economic development minister has won the support of cabinet?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, my efforts are making very good progress in terms of cabinet consideration. 1 think the hon. member will see the results of this work reflected in government announcements over the coming months, and the Minister of State for Economic Development will now be happy to confirm that what he actually said in his speech is in fact quite in tune with and complementary to the efforts which I am undertaking.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I just happen to have with me a copy of what the senator said in the other place. The senator in the other place when he was speaking to a business group said the following:
You make the major decisions . . . when the government formulates policy it is to support your enterprises.
That statement comes from the minister in the other place. The minister to whom I put the question is on record as saying that what the government needs is imaginative government leadership, a dynamic new approach promoting industrial development, led by the government. My question to the minister is simply this: I want to know whether the government is wedded to the traditional passive approach, where the government will follow the private sector, or whether it is going to adopt what the minister says is necessary, and that is a government led industrial strategy which has worked so well in other industrial countries? The government cannot have it both ways.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this government's Speech from the Throne which opened this session of Parliament spoke of this government's efforts in the area of-and I think I can recall the exact words-a vigorous industrial policy. This is this government's commitment and this will be its achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the government is currently running a $17 billion deficit. It has a growth record which is the worst in 26 years. There are more than one million Canadians unemployed. The obvious requirement is a vigorous industrial strategy led by the government. Will the minister assure us this much at least: if he does not get what he promised the people of Canada in the election, he will promise once again to submit his resignation?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I will promise this: in the next election the NDP in my area and across the country will get an even sounder thrashing than it did in the last one as a result of the public belief that our efforts, our potential and our reality of achievement will be far greater than that of the NDP or any opposition party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 27, 1980


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: My question is addressed to the Minister of Justice, Madam Speaker. The constitutional package of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice has united the leaders of the Yes and No forces in Quebec. The Premier of Quebec, along with two other provinces, is taking the package to their courts of appeal. Will the Minister of Justice tell us whether he is prepared to wait until after these courts of appeal have decided the question? If not, and if he still considers it to be a political rather than a justice or legal matter, will he tell us in what other country of the world does a so-called justice minister consider that a matter before the courts is not a legal question?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, if the Parliament of Canada were to stop because any matter is before the court, we would not be able to operate. We stated a long time ago that this is a matter to be debated in the House of Commons and will be voted on in the House of Commons, and properly so. If the provinces or any citizen of Canada wants to go before the courts, we have a complete separation of the powers of legislation and the judiciary in Canada.


STATEMENT OF MR. RYAN-INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL CHANGE MIND
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Prime Minister.
According to Le Devoir the leader of the Quebec Liberal party said during the weekend about his constitutional project that it was:
-unrealistic, unacceptable, senseless and a threat to the balance of Canadian federalism.
In view of that and since he is the leader of the Liberal party in Quebec, could the Prime Minister tell us whether he will continue to react as he has up to now or whether he will perhaps change his views on the constitutional future of our country?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether Mr. Ryan will change his opinions; I have no way of knowing. I think he is entitled to his own opinions and perhaps he will continue to uphold them.


PRESENTATION OF ADDRESS-INQUIRY WHETHER LEGAL OPINION OBTAINED
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question to direct to the government House leader with respect to matters raised with him last Friday. At page 4057 of
Oral Questions
Hansard, he indicated that we are dealing with a resolution respecting constitutional revision in an indirect way. Can the government House leader tell us whether he has an opinion from either the Department of Justice or the parliamentary counsel as to whether the Speakers of both Houses can properly sign on behalf of Parliament a resolution of address when Parliament will never have dealt directly with such an address? Can he inform us whether he has had an opinion from either of those sources?
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, if Parliament, that is the House of Commons and the Senate, were to adopt a joint address to the British parliament, if our two Houses were to send this request, I am convinced that the British parliament in London would have no alternative but to give it consideration.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I do not doubt for one moment the government House leader's conviction with respect to the law. I am specifically asking whether he has obtained an opinion from the Department of Justice or from the parliamentary counsel with respect to that. If he has not obtained an opinion, will he tell us that that is the case. If he has obtained an opinion, is he prepared to table it? In particular, if he has not, is he prepared to put the question in writing to the parliamentary counsel and table his reply in Parliament?
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, our mission is to govern this country and we are doing so in accordance with our parliamentary procedure, pursuant to our Standing Orders, and we believe that what we are doing is perfectly in compliance with our Standing Orders. If my learned colleague has definite objections to raise, I will be pleased to look into them and, if necessary, submit them to legal advisers. It happens often that, while administering our procedures, we consult our officials, but we never table the opinions which we may receive on this or that issue under consideration.
As far as the current issue is concerned, we have no indication of any irregularities in the process.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has given a somewhat convoluted answer and he has not answered the question whether he has an opinion, not from the Department of Justice, I put it to him specifically, but the parliamentary counsel as to the propriety of the way in which the government is proceeding. His answer, I think, is that he has not, but he is convinced that he is right.
Is the President of the Privy Council prepared, as government House leader in the House of Commons, to assure us as to the correctness of the opinion and to put the question in

October 27, 1980
Oral Questions
writing to the parliamentary counsel, so that that issue can be laid to rest, given the fact that the Speakers of both Houses will have to sign what the government will see as an address but which, if it is not the form of an address, will not be an address to Her Majesty the Queen? This is a very fundamental question as to the appropriate process. Would he obtain this opinion?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I have said, I am certain that we are proceeding in the proper way. If the hon. member has a major objection to defend, then I invite him to put it forward and we will ascertain it.
But I want to say that in this instance, as in others, we are proceeding according to the advice we have received, and that it is not our custom, every time a bill or a motion is being considered, to table all the advice given to us by our experts, whether in legal matters or in parliamentary procedure.
1 therefore remind the hon. member that we are considering a proposed resolution which has been refered to a committee which is being set up. After the Senate has completed its examination, that is by December 9, the committee will report back. After December 9, the House will consider the committee report.
I repeat what 1 told his party leader on Friday afternoon, namely that during this third phase, the House will have the opportunity, indirectly, to propose amendments by suggesting that the report be sent back to committee. 1 therefore simply repeat what I told his party leader based on citation 663 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, as well as on a quotation from the Journals of December 1, 1964, pages 941 to 947.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question which I should like to put to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister, I am sure, has committed to memory the statement made by his leader on February 13, 1980, when he said:
The Canada Development Corporation, for example, should be revitalized and play in the manufacturing sectors the more positive role that Petro-Canada has played in resources.
Since that time we have seen public participation in the CDC go down from 64 per cent to under 50 per cent; we see that CDC has close to 83 per cent of all its capital invested in the resource industries and only 10 per cent in manufacturing; and we hear from the government economic minister in the other place some views which would seem to indicate, in spite of the minister's protestations, that there is likely to be a swing even further toward the private sector.
What kinds of measures does the minister propose to place before the House that will fulfil the commitment made by the Prime Minister to the people of Canada in February of this
year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance and I are currently actively working on proposals which would lead to the carrying out of that commitment. I think that before too long we will see some initiatives which will go a long way toward the objective of vigorous manufacturing activity that my hon. friend has mentioned. However, there is obviously a difference between my hon. friend and his party and those on this side, because we continue to believe that while there has to be vigorous government leadership in industrial policy, there is at the same time, a very important role for private initiative and for the private marketplace.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. The minister, of course, did not answer my question.


An hon. Member:: What a pinko!


Ian Deans: However, given that it is even more difficult today to redress the problem of trying to have a handle on developing industries which want to use the CDC, let me ask the minister a question in relationship to that and to the problems of Canadian development. How would the minister propose to meet another objective stated by his leader in the same speech in February-he was speaking on behalf of the government-when he indicated he would want to expand and strengthen FIRA not weaken it, not weaken FIRA's mandate but broaden it? When can we expect to see some activity on the part of the minister and the government which would put an end to the almost carte blanche approval of applications before FIRA by foreign corporations to take over Canadian operations in Canada?


An hon. Member:: Just before the next election.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, where the government, in applying the Foreign Investment Review Act, accepts applications for takeovers, I want to tell my hon. friend and this House that the obligation with respect to significant benefits to Canada is very carefully pursued and ensured. The commitments with respect to FIRA are set out in the throne speech and work is well advanced within the government with a view to having these commitments carried out. I look forward to the enthusiastic support of my hon. friends when these proposals come before the House.
October 27, 1980


DISARMAMENT
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and it stems from the fact that this is the beginning of disarmament week in Canada. My question has to do with the strategic arms limitation treaty, commonly known as SALT II, which was signed by President Carter in June of last year but has not yet been ratified by the U.S. Congress. I should like to ask the minister whether he has made recommendations to his counterpart in the U.S. in order to register Canada's concern about the delay on the part of the U.S. Congress to ratify this document and, if not, does the minister intend to raise this matter with the new administration before the end of this year?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have discussed this matter from time to time with U.S. officials but 1 have not made any recent representations, nor has the government, to the U.S. government in this respect for two reasons. First of all, our position in support of SALT II is already well known; second, the support of the U.S. administration for SALT II is already well known and they are pledged to implement it as soon as they believe conditions warrant. However, I expect that I will probably be discussing the matter with the new U.S. administration, of whatever party, when that administration takes office.


GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism. The minister heard my motion earlier in the question period regarding a document marked "for the minister's eyes only" from his communications co-ordinator, Mr. Mack Erb, regarding changes in the government's energy policies based solely on polls and partisan politics. I should like to ask the minister, first, whether he received such a memo; second, has he read it; and third, what recommendations, if any, has he made to cabinet in this regard?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State, Multiculturalism):: Madam Speaker, I am not aware of that memo. I would appreciate it if he would like to send me a copy of it. I am not sure of the context because I did not hear the whole of his motion under Standing Order 43.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to pass the memo to him which was marked for his eyes only.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Otto John Jelinek: To jog his memory, Madam Speaker, I should like to quote another part of this very political document which
Oral Questions
was clearly prepared as a result of further costly government polls and questionnaires. It reads:
If the export tax could be dropped from the energy package by forgetting the western package for one year, it would be damn good politics.
I want to ask the minister how far he will allow partisan politics and advertising to proceed in an effort to distort and politicize the nation's energy policy, a policy which requires a truthful and honest approach. In other words, when will he stop exercising this partisan rip-off on the unsuspecting taxpayer?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, I honestly do not believe I have seen such a memo, so I would appreciate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Hon. members laugh; that is fine. I do not know but perhaps there are inventors on that side of the House. Perhaps in paper which has crossed my desk such a memo has come forward, but I do not recall it. I do not recall seeing it. I am trying to speak the truth in answer to the question. I reject any charge which says that the government has used any moneys to unfairly advertise any policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I have done my best to ensure that that does not take place. I must say that I do not recall any material coming to my attention that has attempted to do that.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As we are now six months and more into the current fiscal year 1980-81, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether our total outlay expenditure level is right on target? Can he assure the House that expenditures this year will not exceed $58.4 billion, which is approximately a 10 per cent growth over last year?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I suggest the hon. member for York-Peel await the statement of the Minister of Finance on the fiscal framework.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has indicated once again who actually controls expenditures in this government, namely, nobody other than the Minister of Finance.
My supplementary question concerns the number of active employees now subject to the Public Service Staff Relations Act. As that number has climbed to over 300,000-300,015 as of August according to his own figures-compared with 292,-

October 27, 1980
Oral Questions
684 last April, would the President of the Treasury Board indicate whether this 7,000 escalation in the numbers is just a temporary increase, bearing in mind that up to last April when he took office there had been a steady decline in the number totally employed from June, 1979?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sure the House would be interested to know that as a courtesy to the hon. member for York-Peel I have forwarded him monthly the information he has requested, and my covering correspondence indicates that to be used properly, the variables contributing to reported changes including any pertinent footnotes provided should be taken into account. I think he has ignored the caveat I have sent along with these reports.
However, I would like to point out, since the hon. member has raised the question, that indeed there has been an annual increase-we always look to annual increases-of approximately 1,026 permanent employees from August 31, 1979, through July 31, 1980. I assure the hon. member that I am looking into the reason for this extremely modest increase, but I suspect it is because in certain areas it is necessary for us to provide better service to the public.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance and has to do with the continuing speculation that he will de-index personal income taxes in his budget, speculation which his replies earlier today continued to fuel.
Since he has not refuted this speculation and since he knows very well that de-indexing will place the heaviest burden on lower and middle-income earners and on women and single parents, will the minister take this opportunity straightforwardly-even though it would be an eleventh hour conversion for him-to deny that he intends to go ahead with this punitive measure against Canadian taxpayers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think it would be unwise at this stage to begin to divulge piece by piece what is to be in the budget or not in the budget. Therefore I suggest to the hon. member that the full and comprehensive picture will be revealed tomorrow night, and I look forward to her applause at the conclusion of my statement.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, ministers in this House would get applause if they would only answer a question now and then. The government's plan to de-index taxes has been criticized, as the minister knows, by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, by the Canadian Labour Congress, by the Auditor General, by members in this party, and I presume even by some hon. members on the minister's own
back benches. Will the minister listen and pay heed to these representations before it is too late?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have listened to the views which have been expressed by hon. members opposite in the House on the question of de-indexing, the somewhat contrary views which I believe have been expressed by the New Democratic Party as well as the views expressed by widely ranging groups in the country. I have listened to all the representations and the decision will be announced tomorrow night.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On Saturday I was in the city of Newcastle, New Brunswick, and was horrified to learn that the residents of this community have been waiting for several years for work to begin on a new penitentiary. During the past two election campaigns there have been two sod turnings in this area, but so far no work has actually begun.
In light of the fact that 2,500 residents recently turned out at a day of survival in Newcastle, can the minister assure this House that work is going to start on this penitentiary immediately and that the town will not have to wait for the next election before any more dirt is dug?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the House that the plans for this penitentiary are still with us. There still is an intention to proceed, but there never was any firm start-up date which has been passed; the start-up date lies in the future. The commitment we have made is that that institution will be built when the inmate population proceeds to a point where it is justified.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Solicitor General. If, as the minister has apparently indicated, plans are not yet definite as to when construction will proceed, can the minister indicate why his backbencher, the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, has promised this facility in no uncertain terms as being a fait accompli and why there have already been two sod-turning ceremonies as a part of that hon. member's past election campaign?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have been in close touch with that hon. member and the statements he has made have been well justified by government policy.
October 27, 1980


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As industrial productivity, which as the minister knows is production per man per hour, has increased by an average of 3.8 per cent a year ever since the end of the Second World War, and as the minister's own department now is forecasting that this year industrial productivity will decrease by nearly 2 per cent-that is the main reason why costs and selling prices have increased so much this year, which have made it more difficult for our products to sell and caused the slide further into our present recession-would the minister advise the House what steps he and his department are taking to improve productivity and stop this very serious situation from further worsening in this country?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, improved productivity involves a co-operative effort between business and labour as well as both levels of government. We are working to have improved consultative measures in place as well as to have in place new or updated programs under my department and others to help provide the necessary assistance to enable plant and equipment to be renewed and upgraded so as to bring about the kind of productivity improvement which I am glad my hon. friend agrees has to be in place in this country.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, the minister has given a very general answer which really does not answer the question at all. Have he and his officials considered introducing productivity incentives to be paid in direct proportion to increases in productivity and in this way give industry a real and positive incentive to increase productivity and get done what has to be done in the shortest possible space of time?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have been reviewing actively a range of possible initiatives, including some of the kind my hon. friend has talked about. However, for definite decisions and announcements I hope my hon. friend will be close at hand so that as the months go by he will find himself satisfied with the announcements and achievements which will ensue.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that an inquest into the death of a Toronto woman because of a drug overdose revealed that tighter control of dangerous drugs is necessary, and that one of the recommendations of the jury in the inquest was that penalties for obtaining a prescription for narcotic drugs from more than one physician at the same time
Oral Questions
be changed to an indictable offence from its current status as a summary conviction, can the minister assure the House that changes to the Food and Drugs Act and the Narcotic Control Act will be made to make it more difficult to obtain dangerous drugs and to provide stiffer penalties for those obtaining these drugs illegally?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I take note of the hon. member's recommendation. When revising the act we shall heed his representations.


THE BUDGET
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. As he is aware, it has been the practice of the government with large corporations operating in the northern parts of the provinces and the territories to give incentives and benefits to their employees to attract them to work in these isolated areas. Also there is no provision in the Income Tax Act to allow for these benefits to be earned without being subject to income tax. Can the minister enlighten us today as to whether it is his intention tomorrow night to make reference to this matter in the budget? Is it his intention to bring in a bill which would make the necessary provision in the Income Tax Act to allow for these benefits to be earned by northerners without having to pay tax on them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I understand the basis of the hon. member's representations, but at this point it is not possible to indicate what will be in the budget statement; otherwise I will be accused of leaking the budget.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it would really require a bill. I ask the minister whether it is the intention of the government to introduce such a bill. Would he at least have the decency to commit himself today to saying that the remission order, in place as a result of the May election, will be extended past this tax year so that the anxiety and fear experienced by northerners in respect of this matter can be allayed; and furthermore, that the government will not profit from the high cost of living to which northerners are subjected as a result of geography and isolation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member and I are thinking of the same provision that was made with respect to northern allowances-


Erik Nielsen: Only until April.

October 27, 1980
Ora! Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -1 can tell him that it has been announced or it is the intention of the Minister of National Revenue to announce that these remissions will be extended for another year.


PENSIONS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It is becoming increasingly clear that the government, with the assistance of the New Democratic Party, is determined to bring back into Canada's social policy increased use of the means test. We may remember that the means test is a system whereby people like senior citizens who would like to receive government benefits, pensions and bus passes-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Order.
Some lion. Members: Question.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -have to prove economic need. Could the minister provide the House-1 suspect it might be a fiscal measure-with an estimate of how much money he intends to save in the next decade out of the pockets of senior citizens by bringing back increased use of the means test?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am surprised by the hon. member's allegation that it is our intention to bring in the means test to deprive senior citizens of current benefits. Our policy is the exact reverse, that we have applied an income test program through the guaranteed income supplement. We have increased that supplement just recently, so there is absolutely no foundation for the suggestion that we are proposing to reintroduce any form of means test which we were successful in abolishing in our social programs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I guess we all have surprises from time to time. I felt the cabinet had reviewed the Constitution Act, 1980, before presenting it before the House. I think the minister might recall the details of sections 15(1) and (2) which indicate that we cannot discriminate on the basis of age, and there is an exception in the case of disadvantaged people. If the minister checks with any university professor in the business of teaching social policy-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I must give some
background.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: -I think he will find that the most logical legal ruling will be that they have to provide benefits to senior
citizens on the basis of a means test. Will the minister undertake to look over the situation and at some time in the next week or two provide us with an estimate of how many dollars he intends to save out of the pockets of senior citizens because of putting the Constitution Act, 1980, through closure and through the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I refuse to provide such an estimate because no such estimate will exist or is intended to exist.


TELEVISION
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, and also for information and publicity. Given the fact that television time is being bought in Saskatchewan for the Prime Minister's speech apparently on Wednesday, which is the day following the budget, I wonder if the minister will tell the House who is paying for this advertising that apparently is designed to deal with the very, very delicate climate of politics in Saskatchewan now? Who is paying for this? Is it the public, the Liberal party or the government?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Madam Speaker, if I may, I think in all fairness I must say, because there are rules of the House, and not with any incipient pomposity on my part, that I will only answer future questions which are directed to me in my responsibility as Minister of State for Multiculturalism, which is my title.
The answer to the question is that I have no knowledge of any public funds being used to purchase such a program.


Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, apparently this speech is being advertised over radio and television. Has the minister hired promoters? Apparently somebody is promoting it. Who is paying for it?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Well, I am glad the hon. member is watching television and listening to radio, but I have told him that I have no knowledge of public funds being used and I have no involvement in the purchase of such a program.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister tell the House if he and the board of directors of the de Havilland Corporation have
October 27, 1980

seriously considered the appropriateness of the Hamilton-Wentworth area for the proposed expansion of the de Havil-land facilities?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, certainly this matter remains under active consideration.


THE CONSTITUTION
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a brief supplementary question to that put by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to the government House leader respecting the process being followed in the constitutional matter. Since all phases of the committee reference and report must be passed by both Houses, can the government House leader tell the House how motions to refer parts of the committee report back to the committee would be reconciled with the proceedings of the other place? Could he tell us if he has considered what the status of the report might be if one House referred the report back to committee and the other House took no action; that is, given the possiblity of referral back to a committee which goes out of existence as soon as its report is presented.


Yvon Pinard: There are many ifs in my hon. colleague's question, Madam Speaker, and instead of speculating and answering purely hypothetical questions, 1 think we would be much better advised to wait until we know the exact content of the report of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. We shall then be able together to cross the bridge when we get to the river.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Friday, October 24, 1980, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Privilege-Mr. Malone PRIVILEGE


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Sometimes the role of a member of Parliament is difficult and we all appreciate assistance when we can get it, and I appreciate the assistance offered during the question period by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker). But it would have been much more helpful if the hon. member, before he started his grandstanding act, had gotten his facts straight. Every statement of substance he made in putting his questions to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was substantially wrong, and therefore he is misleading the House- inadvertently I hope.


Madam Speaker:: I do not think I see a question of privilege here. Rather, it is debate. It was my duty to listen to the hon. member but I quite quickly ascertained that it was not a question of privilege.


Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I stated that I was in Newcastle on such and such a date and we met with members of the town council, who were so concerned about the fact that these commitments were made. I reported and asked a question of the Solicitor General on that matter. They were so concerned they had a Day of Survival in that community.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the hon. member did make that point in the course of the question period. It is now obvious that his question of privilege is not a question of privilege, but a continuation of the debate. However, he made his point.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a question of privilege in order to bring to your attention one of the procedures of the House which you might take into consideration, respecting the numbers of people who were able to present motions under Standing Order 43 today. At 2.15 today there were two members of the Progressive Conservative Party trying to present a motion under Standing Order 43, and a member from the New Democratic Party.
I understand that when 2.15 is reached Your Honour has no alternative but to proceed to the oral question period. However, my concern lies with the fact that following prayers and the establishment of a quorum in the House there always appears to me to be a two, three or four-minute delay-not usually four, but very often two or three-before we start with the proceedings under Standing Order 43. I feel that today my privilege was somewhat abused because I wanted to present a motion under the Standing Order which could only be put this day, as it was a representation regarding capital gains tax and

October 27, 1980
Introduction of Bills
which it was important to make before the budget presentation tomorrow. Because it would affect farmers and small business people, I wanted to present that motion today. But 1 rise on a question of privilege simply to make representation that immediately a quorum is established in the House we should then call Standing Order 43 so that the maximum number of members can be heard on whatever motions they wish to present.


Madam Speaker:: I appreciate the hon. member's remarks. Today there were five members from the Conservative party who were able to present motions under Standing Order 43. Some days there is the possibility of having a few more members present motions, but this depends on the length of those motions. I usually start *'ery close to 2.05 p.m. with motions under Standing Order 43, and the hon. member knows that our Standing Orders require me to begin question period at
2.15	sharp, which I usually do. Sometimes I go a little beyond
2.15	if a member has risen a few minutes beforehand, and let him continue. But I do have to cut the motions off at 2.15.
I am sorry the hon. member could not get his motion in today, and I hope he will be luckier another day.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I was in a similar position to that of the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and noticed it was 2.08 before the motions under Standing Order 43 started today.


Madam Speaker:: There is no doubt that I have to wait until the House has settled down, as the hon. member will appreciate. If members came in a little earlier and settled down, we could get started. I cannot start the proceedings under Standing Order 43 when I feel the House is too noisy, and this also applies to the galleries. We have to wait until there is a reasonable working atmosphere-if I can call it that-before starting. I agree with you, I did start a little later today, but it was not because I wanted to cut members off. It was just that the circumstances did not allow me to begin earlier. We shall try to start on the dot from now on, if members will co-operate, as 1 am sure they will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-617, to amend the Statistics Act.
He said: Madam Speaker, I am aware that the introduction is probably both the beginning and the end of this bill because of the procedural gags which are placed on private members' initiatives. Nonetheless, in the struggle to create a more open government which recognizes that public information does, indeed, belong to the public, it is also important to limit public information gathering which employs compulsive, coercive or misleading methods in acquiring that information from private citizens.
The federal government today has at its disposal the means to acquire information from its citizens in a manner that is not at all compatible with the spirit of a free and democratic society. Statistics Canada surveys have come under attack from people all across the country, for very good reasons- they constitute a blatant and legalized invasion of privacy, legal, because an individual can be fined up to $500, imprisonment for three months, or both, for refusing to answer all detailed and personal questions demanded by Statistics Canada surveys. My bill seeks to overcome this shortcoming. An amendment to the Statistics Canada Act would remove the penalty for refusing to answer all but the most fundamental questions pertaining to the household itself. With this change we can take the first steps away from government's Big Brother image by slowing the headlong rush into the dehumanizing world of information banks now being established.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[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 questions will be answered today: Nos. 508 to 519 inclusive, 1,287, 1,319 and 1,446.
[ Text]
STATUS INDIANS-USE OF MEDICAL SERVICES Questions Nos. 508 to 519 inch-Mr. Orlikow:
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Manitoba?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of British Columbia?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Alberta?
October 27, 1980

For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the Northwest Territories?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the Yukon Territory?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Ontario?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Quebec?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Newfoundland?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of New Brunswick?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Nova Scotia?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79, what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Saskatchewan?
For the years (a) 1976-77 (b) 1977-78 (c) 1978-79. what was the total number of status Indians using medical services as compared with the rest of the population in the province of Prince Edward Island?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Specific information is not available. Total number of status Indians who could potentially use medical services (health care) as compared with the total Canadian population, by provinces and territories follows:
Newfoundland	Canadian ** 569,000	Registered Indian * 0Prince Edward Island	122,000	509Nova Scotia	841,000	5,631New Brunswick	695,000	5,249Quebec	6,283,000	30,723Ontario	8,445,000	67,460Manitoba	1,033,000	44,642Saskatchewan	948,000	46,275Alberta	1,952,000	36,150British Columbia	2,530,000	55.217North West Territories	44,000	7,649Yukon	22,000	3,244Canada	23,484,000	302,749Dec. 31, 1978 Source: Department	of Indian Affairs and	Northern Development. Registered Indian population, 1978. **Dec. 31, 1978 Source: Statistics Canada, vital statistics, vol 111, 1978.


Mr. Stewart: Did Metric Commission Canada distribute green looscleaf binders entitled "Metric Conversion Progress: U.S.A.-Canada Status Report" and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the cost of each binder (c) what is the purpose of the binder (d) what was the total cost including the report?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Metric Commission is concerned: The question is concerned with binders:
Order Paper Questions
1.	(a) The U.S.A.-Canada Status Report has been distributed since (1980-09-01) stapled without covers. On 1980-03-18 it was mailed along with a notice that future issues would be in looseleaf forms in a binder. Persons on the mailing list were asked if they wished to receive the binder. 1,036 recipients requested and received binders for their copies.
(b)	Each binder costs SI.41 to produce.
(c)	The purpose of the binder is to reduce the cost of updating the U.S.A.-Canada Status Report by merely replacing only those looseleaf sheets which are out of date with new ones as more up to date information becomes available.
(d)	The 1,036 binders were mailed on 1980-06-09. The cost of producing, packaging and distribution was $5,806.62.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): 1.	Did four persons from the Vancouver Harbours Board and the Port Authority travel to Japan in May, 19S0, to discuss with a consortium of Japanese ship owners a number of issues surrounding the recent change in ownership of a terminal operation in Vancouver and, if so (a) what are the full details of the transactions that took place (b) what are their names (c) what is their position (d) what is their annual salary (e) what are the names of the persons or companies that they met with (f) what issues were discussed (g) on what dates were meetings held (h) what was the total cost of the trip (i) who or which department paid for the trip (j) who proposed the trip and who authorized it (k) for what reason were four people sent and what were their roles in the discussions?
2.	On what date did the Canadian officials (a) leave for (b) return from Japan?
3.	Did the Canadian officials submit a report to the minister or to the department and, if so, is the report publicly available?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. Yes, four persons from the Port Management and Port Authority travelled to Japan, Hong Kong and San Francisco.
(a)	No transactions took place, discussions were held with various interested parties concerning the change in ownership of Empire Stevedoring.
(b)	Mr. E. M. Strang
Mr. R. Hubber-Richard
Mr. A. A. Shaw
Mr. M. A. Mulholland
(c)	Chief Executive Officer, Vancouver Port Authority Member, Executive Committee, Vancouver Port Authority
Manager Terminal Operations, Port of Vancouver Manager Port Trade Development, Port of Vancouver.
(d)	15,000 (honorarium)
4,500 (honorarium)
35,600-44,500
32,100-40,125

October 27, 1980
Order Paper Questions
(e)	In Tokyo: Canadian Embassy, Commercial Section
Japan Shippers Council CP Rail
Canadian National Railway
Japan Six Lines Terminal Operations Committee
In Hong Kong: Canadian High Commission, Commercial Section
Orient Overseas Container Lines Mr. C. H. Tung
In San Francisco: Johnson Scanstar
Euro Pacific Lines Hapag Lloyd U.S. Navigation Pacific Neptune Orient Lines
Bakke Steamship Corporation agents for Columbus and Knutsen Lines
(f)	The issues discussed were primarily to do with the change of ownership of Empire Stevedoring Company, and why more Canadian container cargo was not handled through Vancouver.
(g)	Tokyo, May 19 and 20
Hong Kong, May 22, 23 and 25 San Francisco, May 27 and 28
(h)	$13,700
(i)	National Harbours Board Port of Vancouver.
(j)	The general manager of the Port of Vancouver and the chief executive officer of the Port Authority.
(k)	The discussions were at the executive level and additionally involved technical matters which required a balanced delegation. The roles of various persons in the discussions are illustrated by their functional positions within the port.
2.	(a) Departure May 16.
(b) Return May 28.
3.	This report is confidential as it relates to the marketing and operational plans of various companies.
MR. de MONTIGNY MARCHAND


Miss MacDonald: 1.	(a) Prior to his appointment as associate under-secretary of state for External Affairs, what position did Mr. de Montigny Marchand hold (b) what was his salary and to whom did he report?
2.	During this period, did Mr. de Montigny Marchand live in Europe and, if so, were his expenses paid by the government and what was the total amount?
3.	(a) Upon completion of this assignment, did Mr. de Montigny Marchand prepare a report and, if so, to whom did he present the report (b) was the report made public (c) how long is the report?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as the Department of External Affairs is concerned, the reply is as follows:
1.	(a) Mr. Marchand was requested to do a study of Canada's relations with France and the Federal Republic of Germany. This study started on May 1, 1979 and was to last for a period of one year.
(b) Mr. Marchand belonged to the SX-4 class, the salary range of which was then $45,000 to $65,500. He reported to the Clerk of the Privy Council.
2.	Mr. Marchand lived in Paris, and the government paid his expenses according to the foreign service directives, for a total amount of $50,991.89.
3.	Mr. Marchand's mission was cut short by his appointment as associate under-secretary of state for External Affairs on March 25, 1980. He debriefed himself verbally through a series of meetings with senior officials, both federal and provincial, and with representatives of the private sector. Written conclusions of his study are being prepared. It has never been envisaged that these would be made public.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry, as demonstrated
(a)	by betraying the interests of Canadian fishermen in its international fisheries negotiations with the United States;
(b)	by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates and other policies which have led to instability in the fishing industry and inadequate income protection for Canadian fishermen;
(c)	by its lack of action to devise and implement the long-promised revisions in policies regulating the industry; and
(d)	by its lack of action to enforce existing legislation protecting our fisheries.
He said: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to be able to introduce this motion. It is an appropriate day to introduce this motion in light of the signing of a Canada-U.S. treaty on the salmon industry at Seattle, Washington, last
October 27, 1980

Friday. The negotiation teams came up with a proposal which they intend to recommend to their respective governments. In view of some of the answers which I received on Friday regarding a commitment from the government to delay any official ratification of that treaty until certain stipulations are met by the United States, I think it is an appropriate discussion for today.
I share the same skepticism as many Canadians when it comes to negotiating treaties with our neighbours to the south. We only need to look at some of the current outstanding issues of concern to Canada to make us a little bit cautious about entering another agreement which may turn out as sour as the east coast fisheries treaty. I would like to refer to several of those outstanding issues, including the issue of acid rain.
This issue has been given a great deal of attention both in the House and the public sector in Canada and the United States. Certainly, environmentalists are concerned about the increase in the use of coal in the United States to generate energy because it is expected that it will increase acid rain in that country and, therefore, because of air currents flowing toward Canada, increase the incidence of acid rain in our country by 25 per cent. Because of this concern it is felt that we should talk with the United States to see if they will not reconsider and give us some assurances that that increase in coal usage will be reduced.
We are also having difficulties with the auto pact and the refusal of the United States to renegotiate that pact. As a result, it has given us a deficit position of $3 billion for last year and very little return for research and development. We need research and development in Canada to employ our technical people and our young people who are hoping to find meaningful jobs in this country.
There is also the Garrison diversion. Many of my colleagues from the prairies are still advocating and lobbying the government to see if the Americans will not curtail that project, which continues to go ahead irrespective of the very dire consequences to our Canadian fishing industry in the prairies.
Last week a delegation from British Columbia expressed its concern about the Skagit Valley. Two successive provincial governments have failed to convince the United States to curtail the flooding of that valley in B.C., which is a very important recreational facility and wildlife area for the residents of the lower mainland of Vancouver.
The east coast fisheries treaty is still in limbo. The United States negotiators and Canadian negotiators signed a treaty which took them two years to negotiate, which would give protection to the fishermen of both countries, provide some stability in the east coast industry, and a joint management program in the disputed areas around Georges Bank. The treaty took two years to negotiate and one month for Canada to approve. Canada approved the agreement in March, 1979, and, as I am sure many hon. members are aware, the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee still has not ratified that treaty. In fact that committee has told Canada bluntly that it will not be ratified without some amendments.
Fishing Industry
Canada has already made considerable sacrifices in that treaty. It is not too well known that Canadian fishermen on both the east coast and the west coast are in competition for the same fish stocks as the American fishermen. In negotiating the east coast treaty, Canada gave up a considerable amount of the scallop stocks in order to get agreement. At one time the United States caught only 10 per cent of the scallops on the east coast. After negotiations, they were able to catch up to 26 per cent of the scallop stock.
The United States has increased that quota on their own accord by increasing their fleet by 50 per cent and they are now taking 40 per cent of the scallops despite the negotiated allocation of 26 per cent. Canada agreed that we would not negotiate a boundary and that we would take the boundary dispute to arbitration and accept the award. We agreed that we would take no concessions on cod and haddock which also caused our Canadian fishermen to suffer.
We agreed not to fish herring for three years in order to allow stocks to build up. Canada wanted a permanent deal to protect its fishermen and so that they would know what kind of investment they could make in the industry and what stocks they would be able to fish. The United States agreed to a period of ten years, and Canada compromised again. We now have a situation where not even that agreement is good enough. The U.S. again wants to open negotiations after Canada has backed down in at least five very critical areas.
We relayed the attitude of a number of members in this House to the United States through an interparliamentary committee which went to Washington on July 23. At that time we were told in no uncertain terms, as we were told again last week by the Rhode Island Senator Claiborne Pell, that the Americans would not be negotiating on the issue. The representations made by all parties in this House were as equally firm for a treaty ratification by the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee.
In British Columbia we now have what could be a very important treaty for managing the stocks on the west coast to allow Canada to embark on an enhancement program on a very threatened Fraser River chinook and sockeye salmon stock. However, the New Democratic Party would like to make some comments, and caution the government before that treaty is ratified. We would like to make some suggestions which were made to the House last Friday in the form of questions.
Before the government ratifies the west coast treaty, we would like the opportunity to debate this subject in the House to determine if the treaty is indeed in the interests of Canadian west coast salmon fishermen. If one considers that in ratifying the east coast treaty it took the government only one month and that we have been waiting since March, 1979, for ratification by the U.S. Senate, we should seek the assurance, before ratification, that the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee and the U.S. Senate have indeed ratified the west coast treaty so that we are on the same ground. We did not have that on the east coast and, as a result, the fishermen there are suffering a loss of income through a loss of fish. And probably just

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
as important, they are suffering from the long-term effects because the fishery there is being over-exploited by the U.S. fishermen, with the approval of the U.S. Senate.
This debate is equally as important today because the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is currently on the west coast meeting with a ministerial advisory committee in an attempt to implement some changes in the west coast fishing industry. It is hoped that he will discuss significant policy decisions today and perhaps address some of the concerns that 1 shall outline in my remarks.
We are not too impressed by the way in which the minister makes decisions. We have been somewhat critical of his appointment of Dr. Peter Pearse and Mr. Doucet who are to take a cursory tour of the province and talk briefly to people in the fishing industry in order to assess-probably to assess the political climate and make political decisions, rather than the real needs of that industry. We reject the use of individuals to make policy statements that the minister and his department should make.
This is particularly critical for the fishermen and shore workers and their families in British Columbia. There has been a serious decline in salmon returns this season and they fear that the stocks are in serious jeopardy and that their livelihood will be at stake. Combined with growing fears that our herring roe fishery cannot withstand the extreme pressure exerted by the size of the fleet, this may result in a more objective examination of the west coast than has been possible in the last three years.
Hon. members will recall the television programs and news reports which showed bags of money being passed around in the fishing fleet, particularly in the herring season. This gave people in Canada the impression that west coast fishermen are wealthy and do not need government assistance, and that they were not in dire straits this year. These sensational stories are really not true; they are an aberration of the true story of fishermen and of the industry in British Columbia. There have been good years in the industry but there have also been years of suffering when the salmon do not return in the numbers that are expected.
In previous years fishermen were aware of what to expect from their fishing year. They had a respect for their fellow fishermen, the resource, and for the fisheries officers and managers, whose task was to see that enough stock escaped to spawn and return a bounty to the ocean which would be harvested again in two to five years.
The tasks for fishermen and managers, were not so complicated when fewer people were fishing and there were fewer boats. There are great pressures in the industry at the present time because of the increased number of boats involved and the types of gear involved.
Recognition of the problems occurred in the mid-1960s when it was obvious that unlimited entry into the industry was resulting in a larger fleet and increasing difficulty in managing
stocks to provide an adequate harvest as well as to permit escapement.
The Davis plan for licence limitations and a "buy back" program was introduced. The objective was to limit the size of the fleet and thus provide better income to those fishermen who remained in the industry as well as ensuring ease of management for the department.
The Davis plan has not brought about the desired effects and may have, instead, caused the additional problem of overcapitalization that it hoped to prevent. By licensing the vessels instead of the fishermen, the licence has become a commodity to buy and sell, thus increasing the costs in the industry. Vessels which were unused for years became valuable and were used for licence transfers to new vessels. Several smaller vessels were often utilized to pyramid or to build larger and more efficient vessels with a higher tonnage.
Instead of alleviating the problems of management of stocks and bringing stability to the industry, it now has become evident that the licence limitation and buy back program failed. If the plan itself was not a failure, then the responsibility for failure must rest with the government responsible for its implementation. Failure to curtail the rapid proliferation of larger and more efficient vessels, particularly in the seine fleet, has now resulted in added capacity, making the task of managing the fleet through opening and closings for gear types, an almost impossible task.
The seine fleet has exploded to over 600 vessels from the 370 present in the industry in 1969, at the beginning of the Davis plan. The federal government remained silent and remains today as this fleet increases in size and as larger trailers with freezer capacity are being built.
The build up continues in the face of the Sinclair report on a licensing and fee system for British Columbia. In his report, Sinclair estimates the fleet is three or four times larger than need be, and others estimate the size to be greater than that. Why, then, have we had no action on a moratorium on new boat construction? It will take decades of determined effort in the face of many serious problems before we can hope to provide enough fish adequately to support the investment that fishermen currently have in the salmon industry.
This year's decline in salmon stocks is clear warning that decisions on a variety of matters are long overdue. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans estimate that salmon stocks are down 25 per cent to 30 per cent this year alone. That is evidence enough that our hopes for improving salmon runs through the salmonid enhancement program will be long and difficult. The combination of this year's decline with an equally discouraging ten-year decline demands immediate action to reverse this trend.
Over the last ten years there has been a decline in west coast salmon stocks of approximately 30 per cent. There is a serious problem not only with Atlantic salmon but also with Pacific salmon. That trend is worldwide, but this government must take action immediately to alleviate some of the causes.
October 27, 1980

411 1
It is not only the seine fleet that has increased pressure in the resource. Because of higher prices for salmon, and a growing recreational fishery which includes rapidly growing charter services, the limited resource is being more heavily exploited from all sectors of the industry. The federal fisheries department cannot cope with this massive ability to catch fish.
The continuous failure to limit fleet size is the single most serious factor inhibiting the effective management of the fishery.
The difficulty in reducing the fleet at this late stage has been recognized by the minister and the management advisory council which established a subcommittee on commercial catch division to investigate the fair sharing of salmon amongst gear types. The gear types concerned are seine gear, troll gear and gillnet gear which are all vying for the same salmon. They have difficulty coming to grips with the problem of allocation which, if solved, could bring some stability to the situation. The subcommittee is made up of users of all gear types and most major organizations in the industry. Its purpose was to recommend the allocation to various gear type users and report back to the advisory council.
The complexity of this issue and the controversy of base years between gear types prevented any unanimity. The interim report of May 14, 1980, remains in the present minister's hands. The decision on allocation clearly lies in the domain of the minister and his department who must be made to offer some understanding to each gear type and determine what their quota or allocation should be.
Although the report states that catch allocation is not the panacea for all the industry's ills, it is considered as one means of ensuring the survival of each section of the salmon fleet, consistent with the historical catch performance of each section.
I detect a feeling, both in the fishing industry and in the department, that this year's poor season may offer the opportunity to reduce the fleet size.
I am certain those of us representing west coast constituencies have received phone calls, or letters, outlining the financial plight of individual fishermen and the strain this is putting on their families. They have been faced with a disastrous fishing season as a result of not only poor runs of salmon but several other factors which simply compounded poor fishing.
Costs of fuel and equipment have increased 25 per cent to 30 per cent making operating costs that much greater. Prices paid for salmon by the buyers have been reduced 10 per cent to 20 per cent on average and as much as 50 per cent in specific cases. This may be as a result of a surplus of sockeye in Alaska's Bristol Bay but may also be as a result of the growing concentration of buying power by B.C. Packers, who purchased the major properties of its largest competitor, Canadian Fish Co., last spring. B.C. Packers is not in a position to regulate prices paid to those fishermen. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should be concerned about the centralization of ownership and plant capacity and its effect on west coast fish prices, both to the fishermen and to consumers,
Fishing Industry
and on the employment opportunities in coastal British Columbia.
Centralization of processing has destroyed some of our smaller coastal communities, causing fishermen and their families to move to larger centres to seek jobs in an industry that they understand. This has had a disastrous effect on some of the coastal communities that have a long history in the fishing industry. We would ask the minister to address that problem, not only for the native people who are dependent on fisheries but others who have enjoyed the coastal community life.
Fishermen facing foreclosure on mortgages on their vessels are seeking assistance from the federal government. Their appeals to the fisheries improvement loans fund for new terms of payment are up 30 per cent to 40 per cent over last year already. That figure can be expected to climb as the fishing season comes to a close and more fishermen seek a way of retaining their vessels and remaining in their chosen profession.
When the minister answered my inquiries in the House on October 8 about financial aid to fishermen, he commented that 1 was slightly exaggerating the problems and that the department was monitoring the situation with the fishing industry. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) had also mentioned the financial difficulties of native fishermen and, indeed, his monitoring device, which consisted of a questionnaire, determined serious problems which resulted in the establishment of $4.2 million aid program to maintain the native fishery at its present state.
1 would again request the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to re-evalute the state of the fishing industry and the financial condition of the many fishermen in the industry today.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans must know from the demands on its Fisheries Improvement Foans Act, their own catch statistics, and from the decision of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that serious financial conditions exist for many fishermen to recoup their losses in the next fishing season.
I am fully aware that many fishermen do not want the government subsidizing their industry through an aid program that would take the form of loan guarantees, or a moratorium on interest payments. My party and I are of the opinion that the B.C. salmon industry should not require subsidization, considering the value of the resource. However, the problems of the fisherman are not entirely of his or her own making. The federal government has allowed the fleet to expand, complicating good management procedures. It has let interest rates reach unconscionably high levels, and it has failed to protect the habitat, further leading to declining fish stocks.
We unalterably reject any callous attitude that may exist in the fishing community or in the department which sees the bankruptcy of individual fishermen as a way to fleet reduction. We also view another buy-back plan suspiciously. Considering the value of the newer vessels in the seine fleet, any significant reduction of the fleet would be extremely expensive and would

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
primarily benefit the financial institutions which currently hold mortgages on those expensive vessels.
While the Davis plan failed and the catching capacity expanded rapidly, the department's ability to increase management, research, and enforcement skills, remained virtually stagnant. Government restraint has led to a situation of crisis management leading to understandably conservative estimates of permissible catch, of fleet manipulation, particularly in the herring season; projected openings, then a withdrawal of the opening; openings when few fish were available, and even fewer openings, further reducing the income of many of the fishermen on the west coast.
The New Democratic Party calls for greater research staff and enforcement staff. These calls have been partially answered. However, what we have is far from adequate to meet the challenges facing the fishing industry. Research is virtually all directed to the management program because of the critical state of the salmon and herring industry. Long term and innovative research has been put aside delaying longer-term understanding of this important renewable resource.
The support and enthusiasm which met the announcement in 1977 that the B.C. and the federal government were embarking on a $150 million salmonid enhancement program is now fading. It is fading this year particularly because of low salmon returns, but also because of the growing awareness that our laws really are not working to protect our valuable estuaries, our rivers, streams and lakes from pollutants. Just as Ontario and the Atlantic provinces see acid rain, industrial and municipal pollution destroying valuable recreational water resources, so do people in British Columbia see their efforts in salmon enhancement cancelled by destructive logging operations, hydroelectric dams, municipal and industrial wastes.
We share the enthusiasm for the salmon enhancement program and its particular role in the future for our remote coastal communities and the possibilities it could provide for economic development for our native people seeking economic and employment opportunities for their people. We feel the futility of spending sums of money on enhancement when we see the same governments neglecting to prevent further habitat destruction and fish loss.
The case of the Fraser River should amply illustrate our concerns and our demands that government take seriously the provisions of the Fisheries Act to prosecute violators leading to the degradation of our fishery habitat. The Fraser River coalition, which is an amalgamation of fishermen, environmental groups and community groups concerned about the health of the Fraser River, met with our B.C. federal caucus in Port Coquitlam a week ago Saturday and gave us an excellent slide presentation of the kind of abuse to which we are putting our most valuable salmon producing river. The Fraser River, which is responsible for up to 50 per cent of the salmon catch in British Columbia, and contributes approximately $100 million to the B.C. economy, is under attack from many quarters. The slide presentation pointed out the kinds of abuses that we, as a society, continue to inflict upon our rivers across Canada.
The Fraser River, aside from being a salmon producing river, unfortunately also happens to be a major transportation route for freighters, tugs, barges and log booms. It supplies water and power along its length. It serves as an industrial and municipal sewer practically from its headwaters to the Fraser River delta. The presentation to the caucus leaves one bewildered at the flagrant disregard for the quality of water in our most important fish producing river. We know from the coalition reports that in the lower Fraser River alone there are five forest product mills whose effluent escapes into the Fraser River along with wood fibre and assorted toxic chemicals. There are eight metal industries on the lower Fraser which discharge heavy metals and tons and tons of iron lead and zinc annually into the Fraser River and its estuary. We have at least ten concrete plants which dump waste concrete illegally from time to time along with another toxic chemical, calcium hydroxide, which again affects salmon and its feeding sources.
There are chemical plants which contribute to further pollution in the lower Fraser River. We have at least 20 landfill sites along the Fraser River with leachates, including wood wastes, gyproc dumping, sand fill dumping, auto dumping, and other leachates too numerous to be identified and certainly too numerous to have been detected or any charges laid. There are storm sewers up and down the lower Fraser River resulting in untold chemicals entering the river at that stage. Dredging is carried on. There are dams present. Proposed dyking will change the flow of the river. This will lead to degradation of the salmon habitat. Probably the major cause of pollution in the lower Fraser River is the sewage treatment plants. These are plants which have only primary sewage treatment and again release hundreds of thousands of gallons of chlorine and other toxic chemicals into the Fraser River.
A statement by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has indicated that the Fraser River estuary is down to 30 per cent and, if there is any further loss, there will be no environment left. There will not be any environment if we allow further dredging and industrial development along these river banks. The Fraser River is dying a slow death, as reported in The Fishermen paper in Vancouver. While we spend hundreds of thousands, and indeed, millions of dollars on the salmon enhancement program we allow the Fraser River, which produces those salmon, to be killed by industrial and municipal pollution.
The delta where these wastes are going to end up is where the young salmon become acclimatized to the salt water, feeding in the salt marshes along the sides of the river. This place in all of British Columbia is where it is seen fit to use a river as a major sewer. The residents of the Fraser Valley have been lobbying governments for years and years to no avail.
The record of the government with regard to salmon protection is dismal. The salmon enhancement program has been sold to the people of British Columbia and they have accepted it as a necessary item. We are requesting the government to
October 27, 1980

take action to solve the problems within the fishing industry. Indeed, we are expecting a decision on the east and west coasts licensing problems, the allocation decision on the fleet in British Columbia, a greater contribution to research and enforcement in the fishing industry of British Columbia, and expecting them to implement-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Allan Miller: I thank hon. members. I will not be very long. Decisions have been delayed for three years while we have gone through election after election. Decisions must be made in order to save the salmon resource in British Columbia. They must also be made to save salmon streams, trout streams, and the environment right across this land. We expect the government to act immediately on these recommendations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of State for Multicultur-alism (Mr. Fleming).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: What do you know about fish?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this early skepticism from the other side will soon be felled. They forget too soon my year and a half as the parliamentary secretary.
I rise to speak to this motion on behalf of my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). He regrets he is not able to participate in this debate, but he does not apologize. Today and tomorrow the minister is in the home province of the previous speaker and mover of this motion, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), meeting with regional fisheries officials, members of his advisory committee, and the salmonid enhancement board.
The minister does not apologize for his absence from this chamber because he not only advised the mover of this motion of his plans to travel to British Columbia, he sought his views, and those of all members of Parliament from that province, on measures that should be taken to alleviate some of the problems currently facing the west coast fishing industry. Indeed, the minister was grateful to have received valuable input from the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni and, despite the incongruity of the motion before us, has asked me to thank the hon. member for his contribution.
The minister originally planned to be in British Columbia last week. However, pressing business in this House kept him, and virtually all other members, in Ottawa. It seemed logical, and indeed fair to those who were expecting to meet with him, for the minister to reschedule his trip as quickly as possible. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni, however, was not prepared to await the outcome of that visit before condemning this government for what he calls "its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry". I suggest he should have exercised a little patience.
Fishing Industry
Personally, I am honoured to speak on the minister's behalf.
1 may represent a Toronto riding, but you do not have to live next door to the ocean to appreciate the value of the fishing industry to this nation's economy, or to be aware of the sense of well being and security its success over the past number of years has brought to so many Canadians on the east and west coasts. In fact, I have had the privilege of serving as parliamentary secretary to the minister. This experience afforded me the opportunity of learning about Canada's fishing industry and to work with the minister and departmental officials. I learned of the long, often turbulent, history of the Canadian fishery and witnessed the dedication and commitment of the minister and his officials.
We on this side of the House welcome this debate and the opportunity it affords us to put a number of facts on the record. We are proud of the recent growth of the Canadian fishing industry and believe that growth has been partly due to the policies and commitment of this government.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that an added benefit of the minister's long-standing commitment to visit British Columbia and his inability to be in the House today, is that it allows me, on behalf of my party, to salute him for his unfaltering support for, and belief in, Canadian fishermen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Since taking on the awesome portfolio in 1974, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent has worked selflessly, indeed sometimes stubbornly, in the interests of Canadian fishermen. I say fishermen intentionally, for the minister recognized from his earliest days in that portfolio and consequently educated the rest of us to the fact that his prime responsibility was to the men and women who make their living from the resources of our oceans.
He has been relentless in his efforts to encourage fishermen to organize and achieve a strong voice in the management of their own affairs. His goal has been to ensure the industry can provide its participants with a respectable living and security, and to guarantee that never again would being a fisherman be considered a second-class occupation. I suggest that the vision and commitment of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has gone a long way in the revitalization of the Canadian fishing industry and the pride now so evident in its participants.
Perhaps the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni is too young to remember the state of the Canadian fishery in the early 1970s. Let me remind him. It was in a state of disaster. The industry was in such bad shape that many thought it could not recover. Indeed, over a three-year period it took the injection of $130 million by the people of Canada to keep the fishery from irrevocable collapse.
Prior to the declaration of the 200-mile zone in 1977, the problem was simple. There were not enough fish. That challenge was met and stocks were allowed to rebuild. This was achieved through strict management measures introduced by the government, such as annual fishing plans. These plans, which are still in effect today, are established on the basis of scientific advice provided by government biologists and take

moment it is taken by fishing gear. To minimize the effect of the spoilage process, vessels must be equipped to ensure the fish is handled carefully and quickly. The fish must be protected from weather and contamination and properly stowed and chilled in clean pens, boxes, or other suitable containers.
To this end, existing regulations will be amended to require all vessels to use such facilities. It is hoped certification of vessels over 100 feet can begin this year, with all vessels being certified through a phased program over the next couple of years.
In conjunction with certification, there will be a program of measures designed to encourage good handling practices on board fishing vessels. By basing landed quality grades on on-board handling practices, the government hopes to see an increase in such quality-oriented procedures as on-board bleeding, gutting and icing of fish. As well, storage of fish on board should be at a depth of no more than 90 centimetres, that is three feet, below deck, and the use of forks and pumps for handling fish will be discouraged.
In consultation with fishermen and buyers, the department is also developing quality grades as a basis upon which prices can be related to quality. Grades will be regulated initially on a voluntary basis, and industry graders who apply them will be licensed by the government. Discussions are continuing on this proposal and involve and seek the co-operation of fishermen, buyer's representatives and provincial governments to ensure consistency and uniformity in the application of standards.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Certainly not the hon. member opposite.
Another measure in the effort to ensure top quality will be the amendment of existing regulations to prohibit the use of forks for unloading, and to control the use of pumps and other unloading equipment which may damage the edible portion of fish. The regulations will require the upgrading of equipment used at landing sites and the icing or chilling of fish while held at dockside.
While existing transportation requirements with regard to sanitation and chilling are adequate, additional provisions regarding depth of bulk storage and dividers in trucks are needed to further protect quality. Again, extensive consultation with the industry will continue prior to the implementation of any new measures.
The provision of an approved water supply at all unloading ports remains a particularly difficult problem requiring either installation of water systems or modification of existing unloading practices where acceptable water cannot be made available. This problem will be dealt with on a port-by-port basis, with the objective of having fully approved water supplies or modified unloading systems in each port by 1985. In the meantime, an interim standard will be applied to ensure the quality and safety of fish products.
Another step in the process toward achieving the best possible quality for Canadian fish products is the development by the Fisheries Council of Canada, in consultation with the
Fishing Industry
department, of guidelines for good manufacturing practices. As well, at the request of the Fisheries Council, the department is drafting final product grade standards for groundfish fillets, including fillet blocks, frozen herring fillets, and cured herring products.
These forward-thinking measures, Mr. Speaker, are not the product of a government lacking in support of the Canadian fishing industry. They, and others to be enunciated by my colleagues who are also participating in this debate, represent positive action on the part of a government which believes in the vitality and viability of the industry and which, through extensive consultation, believes in developing policy in conjunction with the industry.
The government is proud of those Canadians who participate in this nation's fishing industry and it will continue to work with them and for them in support of their efforts.
I am sure other hon. members look forward, as I do, to hearing not only from a number of hon. members on this side of the House on the great progress made in the Canadian fishing industry, due in good part to the support of the federal government, but also to my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Henderson) and former minister of fisheries in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to address myself to the New Democratic Party motion which condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry. The New Democratic Party must have looked long and hard to find an issue on which to condemn the government, yet it found one, the fishing industry. When it comes to managing the fishing industry the record of the Liberal government has been so poor that even the NDP cannot go to bed with the Liberals with regard to this part of our economy.
Last week when the NDP chose, with the Liberals, to handcuff this House by way of ending debate on something as important as our constitution, 1 thought this House would have to make provision for putting 31 more members on the government side of the House. I say 31, because only one member of the New Democratic Party gave serious thought to what was being done to this House. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), put it correctly when he said that the NDP sold its soul for some potash.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order, please. 1 would like to call the attention of the hon. member to the motion before the House, and the question of relevance is involved at this point.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry is being managed so poorly by the federal government that if it were not dragging so many people down to subsistence living, it would be a joke. However, the fishermen of Canada do not refer to the fishing industry as a joke. It is deadly serious.

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
By its lack of action this government has allowed the controversy between Canada and the United States regarding the east coast fishing treaty to go on far too long. This treaty is of the utmost importance to our Canadian fishermen, and this government has been dragging its heels. It is allowing a small number of U.S. senators who are members of the U.S. Senate foreign relations committee to block ratification of the treaty which was negotiated in good faith by both countries. I am sure that the majority of American people do not realize that this issue is a source of strained relations between our two countries.
The Liberal government failed to take advantage of the good feelings which were evident earlier this year. Our Secretary of State of External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who, incidentally, is the first external affairs minister to be relegated to the second row, speaks of the inadequacies of the American political system. The issue in this matter should not be the deficiencies in the American system of government. Rather, it should be the ratification of the treaty. We, as Canadians, cannot expect to change their system, so we should be attempting to work with it. Our government should be appealing to all members of the U.S. Senate and pointing out to all senators that non-ratification of this treaty is severely straining relations between us.
Added to the problem is our government's attitude toward the United States. This treaty was negotiated to set up a system of co-management of the fishery for the conservation of the stocks. When it appeared that ratification of this treaty may be in jeopardy, our Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) decreed that the Canadian effort would be allowed to increase. This action was taken, supposedly, to show that Canadians will not allow themselves to be pushed around and that we must protect our claims to the fishery.
My concern with this action is that perhaps our goal of conserving our fish stocks for the future may be abandoned. When the treaty was negotiated I am sure that one major consideration in the negotiations was to allow the fishermen to take a maximum amount of fish while maintaining that future stocks will exist. If Canada steps up its effort in the fishery and the Americans retaliate by stepping up their effort, we may find that the only losers in this approach will be the fishermen themselves. If there is too much effort on the resource, the stocks may not exist as required in future years. I plead with the government to proceed carefully because there are literally thousands of people who depend on those stocks to make their living.
Canada should be making this issue of a settled treaty more of a priority. This government appears not to be treating this with the importance it deserves. The fishing community in Canada needs this issue resolved. Any fisherman in Canada today can tell us that fishermen have not been spared by inflation. While operating expenses such as the cost of gear, fuel and maintenance have risen substantially over the years, the fisherman's income has risen much more slowly.
The fishing industry has changed so dramatically over the years that a good fisherman must also be a shrewd businessman. It is not uncommon for a fisherman to have invested $250,000 so that he can work to make $10,000. A vessel which ten years ago cost $20,000 now costs upwards of $100,000. One of the purposes of passing Bill C-28 was to allow the government to guarantee loans of up to $150,000 when, prior to that, the government guaranteed only $75,000 under the fishing vessel assistance program. During debate on this bill the minister indicated that fishermen historically have been good risks, and he felt that Parliament should pass Bill C-28 because fishermen will continue to be good risks. I agree with the minister, but he is making it more and more difficult for the fisherman to maintain his good reputation.
A fisherman who negotiates a loan does so at a rate which is 1 per cent over prime. Unfortunately the rate of interest the fisherman pays changes every month as interest rates change. We all know that the policy of this government has not been to bring interest rates down but, rather, to allow them to rise steadily. The fisherman, after negotiating a loan, does not know how much he will have to pay back.
When the standing committee was studying Bill C-28 I attempted to introduce an amendment which would set the rate of interest charged to a fisherman at the time a loan is negotiated. This set rate of interest would allow the fisherman to know just how much interest he would have to pay. That way the fisherman would be able to determine if indeed he was going to be a good risk. It is unfortunate that a fisherman may become a bad risk because interest rates skyrocket. He may be put into a position where, through no fault of his own, he cannot meet his obligation. The amendment was not accepted, and the fisherman must continue to take his chances. The amendment was not put through because the government did not want it. Because the government could find a technicality, the amendment was ruled out of order. Once again the federal government missed an opportunity to assist the fisherman in a real way. That was unfortunate for the fisherman.
The most important reason for condemning the government for failing to support the Canadian fishing industry is that the minister consistently fails to create his long-promised revisions in policies. Rather than making decisions, the minister appears to be more comfortable sitting on the fence, and when he makes one of his rare decisions he fails to consult all sectors of the fishing industry.
When our government was in power, the minister's predecessor, my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East, initiated a full-scale review of fisheries policy. The policy review, which was to be presented in April of this year in the form of a white paper, was entitled "A Fisheries Policy for the Eighties". This review included input from all sectors of the industry including fishermen, processors, unions, provincial governments and the federal government.
In addition, our government defined a licensing policy regarding freezer-trawlers and factory freezer-trawlers, and I challenge the present government to define its policy regarding this issue. I am sure it cannot because it appears that it has no policy at all on this matter.
October 27, 1980

Our government proposed that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry review and study the findings of the Levelton report on the east coast and the Sinclair report on the west. We in the standing committee are still awaiting these reports under the present minister.
Salmon stocks have long been a problem on the east coast. Our government created a new policy for Atlantic salmon and established the Atlantic Salmon Board. Has the present minister utilized the salmon board? If so, it has been very quietly. Our government negotiated a new international convention protecting Canada's rights on the high seas. These negotiations appear to have been delayed by the new administration. Our government proposed that a new DFO region be created in the maritimes. In July I was told by the minister that he had no plans to create a new region. This fall he announced that a new gulf region will be set up. I wish he would make up his mind. Our government defined a clear policy regarding over-the-side sales which met with the approval of fishermen and processors alike. The present minister changed that policy and was faced with opposition from the three maritime provincial fisheries ministers. Our government reopened the sword fishery in Canada. The present fisheries minister could not make that decision.
Our government inherited a woefully inadequate small craft harbours budget, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) proposed in the December budget that an additional $14 million should go to small craft harbours to help make up the serious need for harbour and wharf improvements in Atlantic Canada. Our government instituted a comprehensive review of unemployment insurance for fishermen. The fishermen are still awaiting much needed changes in the UIC program.
Our government established a ministerial advisory council on the west coast with the intention of establishing one on the east coast. Just last Friday in the standing committee the deputy minister reported that the minister felt he was not committed to creating one on the east coast. The list of our accomplishments and initiatives in just nine short months goes on and on. We are still awaiting these major decisions by the present minister who has been back in power almost nine months.
The most notable difference between our government and the new government is that we chose to consult with our provincial counterparts concerning major issues in the fishing industry. In speaking with a number of provincial ministers over the last few months, it appears that the new form of federal-provincial consultation means the federal fisheries department phoning the provincial fisheries departments and informing them of the federal decision. Webster will have to amend his definition of "consultation". I should like to inform the House of the dreadful ways in which the Liberal government is managing our fishery.
Just recently the minister announced an allocation of 17,000 metric tons of squid to the Japanese. This is at a time when the
Fishing Industry
world market for squid is facing a glutted situation and our fishermen are getting only five cents per pound. So, we give 17,000 metric tons of squid to the Japanese. What do we get in return? Last Friday in the standing committee I directed this question to the deputy minister responsible for the east. He replied that at the moment we have not received anything. It is just another indication of us giving and not getting. In his remarks Mr. Miller indicated that they needed more staff for fisheries protection officers.
Since there was insufficient money in the budget, just recently on the east coast vehicles and vessels were tied up or grounded because there was no money for gas. I say we need more money in the budget. Possibly we need more staff, but definitely we need more money in the budget for fisheries protection officers. When we talk about more money for fisheries protection, the minister refers to needed cutbacks, but at the same time the present government spends $30 million on advertising its own constitutional package.
Another issue about which I should like to talk is the Makivik Corporation which is owned by Eskimos in the north. It shows up the total inadequate licensing policy of the present minister and government. In 1979 the Makivik Corporation was given a temporary permit for exploratory fishing in the Ungava Bay. They were told verbally, although it was denied later, that they had exclusive rights in the zone, provided they gave the data they were compiling to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I have a copy of the telex sent to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans dated October 17 from which I should like to quote. It refers to the Makivik Corporation fishing in Ungava Bay and reads in part as follows:
During our operations two weeks ago in Ungava Bay, another of the northern shrimp producing vessels, the MV Pandalus of northeastern New Brunswick turned up next to our vessel and began to fish in the areas of stock concentration we were studying.
They complained to the Department of Fisheries in Halifax and were informed that the Pandalus was fishing without a permit. Also they were informed that the department was ordering the Pandalus to leave that area immediately. The Pandalus ignored that directive. It is hard for me to accept why a law-abiding citizen or corporation would completely ignore a directive from the fisheries department, unless they had prior consultation with the department or the minister and were told that it was okay to fish in that area. Over the weekend by a telephone call to the minister in Ottawa, over the heads of the department in Halifax, they received the permit. I checked into the port from which the Pandalus sailed and it seems it comes out of Caraquet, New Brunswick, which is in the riding of Mr. Herb Breau.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that references to other hon. members in this place is usually by constituency, not by name.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Pandalus received the permit to stay in the area and fish.

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
The matter which strikes me as being more serious than that is that five more vessels were given permits to fish in that area. After only one year of information and data being compiled by the Makivik Corporation, and over a weekend six more licences being given, it seems to me it is a very poor method of licensing the fishing industry of Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I will direct the main body of my comments to two particular issues. One is the Amax Corporation, which is the Alice Arm dumping station, and the other is the Kemano completion. These two issues have a very real impact upon the fishing industry in that they relate to a reduction in salmon spawning and rearing grounds, and, combined with pollution, they are two of the most pressing and serious problems facing the fishing industry in Canada today.
1 think it is important all members of the House, particularly those members on the government side, keep in mind what is happening to the Canadian environment in relation to the serious threat posed by acid rain to 20,000 lakes in Ontario and Quebec, the very serious pollution in the Great Lakes and most of the rivers in Canada, and the fact that unless we have some very serious moves in terms of environmental protection, not only in our rivers and lakes but in our near-shore marine areas in the oceans in the maritimes, British Columbia and the Arctic, very soon we will not have a fishing industry on which to stand and debate in the House.
This is not to underplay the serious economic problems which face the industry from overcapitalization, high interest rates and so on, but stock reductions throughout Canada from inadequate environmental and habitat protection are at the core of the disaster facing our fishing industry today. The pollution of our inland waters, the Great Lakes, the maritimes, the Arctic and the Pacific coast, along with the litany of developments ranging from Riley Creek in British Columbia to mercury pollution in the Wabigoon and English River system are signals that the fishery in Canada does not have or use the mandate given to it by the public interest.
Let me first deal with Amax, the Alice Arm situation in British Columbia, which I have raised in this House on a number of occasions in the past year. It relates to a special dumping permit, SOR-79-345, which was brought in April 10, 1979, in mid-election, as a result of a backroom cabinet deal between the Liberal party and the Amax Corporation. This permit allows the direct dumping of 100 million metric tons of effluent into Alice Arm, which is an area of substantial importance to the commercial and native fisheries on the northern B.C. coast. Some of the effluent is composed of arsenic, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, radium-226 and cadmium. I intend to deal in some detail this afternoon with one of those elements.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of the Environment, I would point out, have investigated
the possibility of on-land tailings disposal and have found it not only feasible but have found that only a 2 per cent difference in return on investment is required to have a relatively benign environmental on-land tailings disposal. The difference, I would point out to hon. members, is $29 million for on-land tailings versus $6 million for direct dumping into the ocean.
I think it is important that all members keep in mind that what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has decided is adequate for an acute lethality test is to place a number of rainbow trout fingerlings into a tank, run some effluent into it, and if not more than half the fish die within 96 hours, then the bioassay sample passes. I think that is a very questionable way of testing the impact on a commercial or a food fishery resource.
I would like to place on record today some excerpts from the Environmental Health Committee of the British Columbia Medical Association on just one of the elements of this 100 million metric tons federal government dumping. The radium-226 summary says:
-about 1 millionth of a gram (I microgram-Mg) or 35 billionths of an ounce in the body, can cause bone cancer
-radium leaches into the environment much more readily after the ore is ground up than when it is embedded in solid rock. It is fairly mobile in the environment
-chemicals used in the milling process may further increase the leachability of radium-226
-radium-226 is concentrated in the food chain Cancer Causing Dose -radium-226 is the second most toxic radioactive bone cancer producing substance after radioactive plutonium-239. It is between 10-100 times more carcinogenic than radioactive strontium-90.
-the lowest dose of radium-226 that has been found to cause bone cancer in man is 1.2 micro curies which is equivalent to 1.2 micrograms or 1.2 millionths of a curie or gram.
The summary goes on to refer to "Biological Pathways and Food Chain Concentration", which is crucial-and it is unfortunate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is not here today. However, I am sure that members over on that side of the House will transmit this information back to him, which relates to a dumping permit he granted in a backroom cabinet deal with this corporation.
The summary goes on:
A great variety of oceanic organisms accumulate radium far in excess of that present in sea water. Some marine micro-organisms (example diatoms) concentrate radium-226 from 1,000 to 3,000 times seawater levels.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is only requiring that the actual level in the sea water be monitored.
There is a great deal of research needed to demonstrate the mechanisms by which radium is concentrated as it goes up the food chain from increased water levels to aquatic plants, phytoplankton and diatoms, to fish and then to animals and man; or from increased water levels to terrestial plants, then animals and man.
I point out to members opposite that these are questions which have really not been looked into at all by the government in giving out this very unusual permit. As a matter of fact it is the only one of its kind to be granted to a mining corporation in Canada.
October 27, 1980

1 will read from one of the documents upon which the cabinet based its decision. Under the heading, "Existing Regulatory Requirements under the Fisheries Act", it says:
These regulations, which were promulgated in February, 1977, prohibit the deposit of effluents (including tailings) with a suspended solids level greater than 25 ppm.
1 would point out that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in his recommendation last year to the cabinet put in 400,000 parts per million in this special dumping permit. The document continues:
Therefore, if the marine disposal option is to be authorized pursuant to the Fisheries Act, a special, site-specific regulation for this operation would have to be developed and passed by the governor in council upon recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
The Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans are, in general, opposed to the unconfined disposal of tailings. Flowever, the policy of the departments has been to acknowledge that the practice can be authorized under special extenuating circumstances.
The most recent departmental position with regard to this issue was presented in January, 1978, to the B.C. Pollution Control Board Inquiry into the development of the province's mining, milling and smelting effluent objectives. 1 quote from that presentation as follows:
To protect the Canadian fisheries, the federal cabinet endorsed the policy of containment of pollutants at source based on the installation of the best practicable control technology. However, it has been recognized by the Environmental Protection Service of Environment Canada that under special circumstances it is virtually impossible to install the required control technology-
And here we come to the economic factors, the deal on which the Liberals obviously made their decision:
-the Department of the Environment, on the basis of its review of January 1979 data, believes that the construction of such a tailings pond on land can be economically feasible. Regardless of whether the 1978 or the 1979 prices are considered, there is approximately a 2 per cent difference in the return on investment between on-land disposal and marine disposal of tailings.
So the government is on record as saying that a tailings pond can be designed and developed, can be maintained at only 2 per cent return difference on investment, and they opted for the latter, the cheaper $6 million direct-ocean dumping which, as I will point out in a few moments, has a terrible impact on the commercial and food fisheries in that area.
I go on to quote from the same document with respect to submarine disposal into Alice Arm:
-The potential for heavy metal buildup in the food chain to the point where there may be an impact upon the ecosystem, including man.
A report done by a biologist in British Columbia was released last week. It was called the McCart report. 1 quote from page 18 of that report:
The commercial fishery would be expected to benefit by about $4.25 million over the 26-year life of the mine, ignoring the possibility of price increases.
One of the things which has certainly not been looked at by the Minister of Fisheries and members on that side is the impact of 100 million tonnes of effluent going into the inlet. It is going to smother life on the bottom of the inlet and will spread up to the surface and cause serious problems in terms
Fishing Industry
of heavy metal building and poisoning of various other fish species.
With regard to shrimp densities, I quote from page 29 of the McCart report. This shows some of the very serious flaws in the scientific evidence upon which the government based its decision. In relation to shrimp, I quote:
The confidence limits, expressed as a percentage of the mean, were plus or minus 188.5 per cent.
How anyone in their right mind, particularly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, could support a proposal going ahead when there was that sort of confidence limits is certainly, at the very best, questionable.
The conclusion of the McCart report says it all in my view. On page 68 it says:
The potential impacts are serious enough to preclude the marine disposal of tailings.
One of the groups which will be most seriously impacted, other than the commercial fishermen, are the Nishga people who live in that area. In the community of Kincolith, for example, its vice-president made a statement a few weeks ago. He is Mr. Rod Robinson of the Nishga Tribal Council, and he said:
The company has offered us a share in the mine. Our share is death.
That is certainly something that neither the Minister of Fisheries nor members on that side have responded to, to date. It was predicted that if the tailings were confined to depths greater than 100 metres the following would probably occur: (a) most of the area of Alice Arm to Hans Point will eventually be blanketed with tailings; (c) the productivity of deep water benthos fauna including commercially exploitable species such as shrimps, prawns, various species of king crab, as well as demersal fish such as halibut, rock fish, crab etc. will be reduced or where deposition is very heavy, entirely eliminated.
At this point I would quote from statements of Mr. Born, President of Amax, and by Mr. Lenton, the General Manager. First, Mr. Born:
The marine disposal, in the opinion of expert marine consultants and federal and provincial environmental officials, will have no detrimental effect on the marine life in the area and will not harm the salmon fishery.
I quote from Mr. Lenton:
The tailing will have no adverse impact on the environment in Alice Arm.
It is interesting to have a look at what other people have said, people who are perhaps not biased by having some tie, as the Liberals do, to the $23 million which they have saved Amax or the corporation in its direct interest. I quote from Stephen Pond, a University of British Columbia physiological oceanographer, who says:
There is evidence that heavier, saltier water from outside the inlet flows in, mixing up the water. The prediction made that the material would go down to the bottom and stay there is not likely to hold true.
In August, 1980, bishops of the Anglican Church and bishops of the Catholic Church in Canada called for a with-

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
drawal of the special order in council and for a moratorium upon development of the resource until technology is developed to dispose of the tailings safely. I point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has not responded to either the bishops of the Anglican Church or the bishops of the Catholic Church regarding their very serious questions and allegations on the Amax project in British Columbia.
I quote from Dr. Albright, a microbiologist from Simon Fraser University:
We cannot accept the argument that aquatic animals have adapted to high turbidities or heavy metal levels as support for the marine disposal option. It is not known what the chronic, long-term effects of heavy metals or turbidities are. There may also be hidden costs such as reduced growth or reproduction. Animals may show temporary adaptation, but increases beyond these levels, or for extended periods of time may exceed their tolerances. Should the worst happen, salmon could avoid their regular migration routes and avoid the mining area.
I quote now from the West Coast Environmental Law Association:
The Alice Arm Tailings Deposit Regulations seem to run contrary to the over-all intent of the Fisheries Act, which allows exemptions only under extenuating circumstances, and only when minimum impact on fisheries resources has been clearly established.
We in Canada are not without experience in these matters. Just south of the present proposal is the Rupert Inlet operation of Utah Mines Limited which predicted that tailings would remain below 100 metres and settle in the deeper portions. I quote from an abstract regarding that particular operation:
Present studies have shown that the waste discharge from the copper mine has resulted in the anticipated obliterative effect on the deep benthos and an unpredicted widespread deposition of tailings which has affected the shallower, highly productive regions of the system.
Based on that experience, which is still occurring today, where the effluent is now several hundreds of miles out to sea and having a very serious and unknown impact on the fisheries resource, both the commercial and sport and food fishery, the government should call for a full public inquiry into the situation in Alice Arm.
In my view the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should definitely hang his head in this House. The cost to the commercial fisheries is documented as being in the millions of dollars. The cost to the Nishga native people in that area is death. The company will save $23 million and the Liberal party will receive full credit, along with the Amax Corporation, but at enormous public cost.
Having dealt with just one particularly acute pollution occurrence in this country, I would like to move on to a second area in which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not upholding his constitutional requirements, the Kemano completion project which began in the 1950s when the government of British Columbia gave to the Aluminum Company of Canada special water rights in northern B.C. Alcan constructed a dam on the Upper Nechako system backing up a double chain of lakes and rivers through the top of Tweedsmuir Park, flooding 925 square miles of land, now called the Nechako Reservoir.
This water was diverted from the Fraser River system, one of the largest salmon spawning rivers in the world, through a 16-kilometre tunnel to an underground power house at Kemano and it takes Fraser River water completely out of that system and pumps it through a tunnel directly into another area of the Pacific Ocean. The Kemano Completion Project intends to virtually shut down the Skins Lake spillway blocking almost all the water released into the Nechako River.
There is also the plan to dam the Nanika River which would flood Kitprice Lake and Nanika Lake, reversing the flow away from the Morice-Bulkley-Skeena system and into the Nechako Reservoir and back again to Kemano and another area of the Pacific. So we see the water rights given by the B.C. government allowing water to be taken from the Fraser system, which is crucially required there now because of pollution and low water, and from the Skeena system, being dumped in a different way by reversing flows into another area of the Pacific.
Alcan presently has two-thirds of the Nechako flows which has reduced the flows at, for example, Fort Fraser by 97 per cent, Vanderhoof by 83 per cent, and Prince George by 40 per cent. The new proposal would have a direct impact on the 1,500 native people on the Bulkley and Skeena systems and they would be directly and negatively impacted by the completion proposal. Last year's fisheries department and International Pacific Salmon Commission's study indicated that damage to salmon stocks would range from somewhere between $88 million and $372 million if Alcan is allowed to go ahead with this proposal. Definitely we are not talking about small peanuts, but from the responses we have received from the Minister of Fisheries it certainly seems that way.
In my view, a full public inquiry is required on this issue as well because mitigation and compensation, something which was espoused both by the previous Conservative government and the present Liberal government, really do little more than look at the impact on the value of salmon. It is a far more complex question when we are talking about flows going into the northern Pacific and down the Fraser River in terms of the impact on everyone in every community all the way down.
For example, this past summer Alcan refused, on the request of the Minister of Fisheries, to raise the levels of the Nechako River as requested for the safety of the in-coming spawning stocks. I think it is important that we question the motivation of a corporation when it refuses to raise the water level for the protection of a resource that has an equal right to be in operation. We must closely scrutinize what the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) have done, and ask why they have not called for a full public inquiry.
In my view, the whole thing comes back to a very similar situation with regard to the Amax question where there seems to be a very close corporate tie between certain members of cabinet and various corporations. To date, there has always been more than enough electrical capacity for expanded smelter activity in the Kitimat area. Since 1950 approximately one third of the power generated has been sold into the general
October 27, 1980

B.C. hydro grid, and more aluminum production could also be achieved by the conservation of the electricity used in the present smelters by modernizing the pot lines,
Alcan is saying that it wants to produce more aluminum, and it can do it now without going ahead with this other flooding project and the siphoning off of water from another system. The option is there, but it has never gone ahead with that option. I think that it is important that those ministers, and those members in public life who are responsible for the interests of the public, stand up for once and help to preserve an industry which is seriously faltering in Canada.
Ten per cent of the salmon stocks in British Columbia are impacted by Kemano I project and Kemano II project. The minister has the power to modify and prevent construction of the project and, particularly, he has the right to call a full public inquiry into the issue, something which the minister hopscotched around over the past number of years. The 1950 agreement made between Alcan and the government of British Columbia can be readily modified. It was brought in and passed by the B.C. provincial cabinet and can be changed by either an act of the B.C. cabinet or by the provincial legislature. Although I do not think there are many, the Liberals and the Socreds in this particular situation are clearly in cahoots with Alcan on this issue.
In concluding, who within the government stands up for the commercial, native and sport fisheries in this country? Certainly, in my view and in the view of many fishermen in this country, it is not the present Minister of Fisheries. The list grows day by day. The previous speaker touched on the Ungava Bay situation, a very important issue with regard to the giving out of licences when there is a scientific study going on. It is certainly not in the interests of the Inuit with regard to the shrimp fishery. The list grows day by day. There is Arvik in the Arctic, Amax on the B.C. coast, Alcan on the Fraser and Skeena, Riley Creek, the English-Wabigoon pollution, the Great Lakes, the maritimes, and on it goes. All these failures, in my view, are results of bankrupt policies which come from that side of the House, of putting corporate brownie points ahead of public interest in our fish.


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House today makes me wonder whether the opposition has any knowledge of the real state of Canada's fisheries. To listen to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), you would think we were on the brink of disaster. Well, Mr. Speaker, I want to take the few minutes available to me to set the record straight. I want to tell the House that, while the fisheries are not without problems, their general state is very healthy, and the industry is a vibrant and valuable net contributor to the national economy.
Members opposite may be interested to know that the fisheries last year contributed something in the order of $1 billion to our balance of payments. We have become the biggest exporter in the world, in terms of the value of our fish
Fishing Industry
products. In fact we earned some $1.3 billion from exports of fish and seafood last year. An equally significant statistic is that the landed value of all Canadian fisheries was more than $873 million in 1979, and that is money which helps to support the economies of hundreds of small towns and villages on both coasts.
But the statistics do not tell the whole story. There is a feeling of stability in the fisheries. Catches are more reliable, plant work is steadier and stretches out over more of the year. There is growth in fishermen's organizations, as they gain status in their own communities and take a more direct role in the management of the industry from which they earn their livelihood. No longer is the fishery regarded as the employer of last resort.
The problems and opportunities of Canada's fisheries are certainly different from what they were only five or ten years ago. Throughout the 1970s the problems were problems of quantity. There simply was not enough fish to go around; the stocks were depressed, and a major rebuilding operation was necessary. That operation, which began after the disastrous experience of 1974, was given a major boost when Canada declared a 200-mile coastal fishing zone in 1977.
While I do not want to suggest that the 200-mile zone is the answer to all our problems, it has had a positive impact already. For example, Canadian fishermen's share of total fish catches taken from the Atlantic west of Greenland and north of Cape Cod ranged up to 37 per cent in the decade preceding 1977, but increased to 56 per cent last year.
In the waters within and immediately adjacent to the 200-mile zone, Canadian fishermen have made even more dramatic progress. Canadian catches in these waters increased from 895,000 metric tonnes in 1976 to 1.2 million tonnes in 1979, or an increase from 42 per cent to 73 per cent of the total taken by all fleets operating in the area. The principles of Canadian control and majority share of fishing within the zone have now been firmly established. Foreign fishing is permitted in the zone only after licence from the Canadian government, and is limited to stocks that are surplus to the needs of Canadian fishermen.
After Canada imposed the 200-mile limit there ensued a hue and cry for massive development, massive subsidies, massive fleet expansion. Fortunately this government resisted chasing pie in the sky-in the sea. This government's goal was, and continues to be, the encouragement of a solid industry which cannot only pay its own way but can contribute in a major way to the nation's economy. Nevertheless, we have to stop assuming that the fishery is some kind of gold mine. Instead, it is a garden, and if we care for it through sound management, it will last forever, helping to provide food for the world.
The policies of this government have added new co-ordination to the fishery, and a new degree of stability. We have avoided dictating too much development, by forcing people into boats or factories the government designs. Instead, we have tried to create a framework that sets the people free to work, free to develop their own future, in an industry that only six years ago faced bankruptcy and now can pay its own way.
4122

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
This government is establishing the co-ordination, the framework, the buffer margins of supply and profit that will let innovations take hold.
But nothing will go right unless, before all else, we protect the foundation and keep a stable supply of fish for a prosperous, dependable fleet. The fish are forever there but forever fragile, requiring careful management. We have begun building up a co-ordinated industry that can reach high. If, however, we fool around with the foundation, the rest will topple.
Because co-ordination has given us a fishery policy that works, I fear the tendencies that would again fragment fisheries management. Many provinces want more fisheries jurisdiction, not in the processing sector or the educational sector where they have every right and reason to do more, but in resource management, the issuing of licences, and the division of quotas.
What is the reasoning behind their demands? The Fathers of Confederation singled out the fishery resource as a special case, and the Fathers of Confederation were right. Herring, cod and even lobster move from province to province and country to country. You could catch all the southern gulf cod in the winter at Cape Breton and catch them all again that summer in the Gulf, if only you could catch the same fish twice. A Quebec salmon swims back to its river from Greenland past St. Pierre and Miquelon and four other provinces. A fish caught in a four-way tug of war is going to be a funny looking fish at the end.
Should provinces control the resource because they are more politically responsive to local needs? The federal system also has local members of Parliament. The federal government also has seven times the provincial number of fishery employees in Newfoundland and the maritimes, and the national government understands local demands and pressures. We also know that, after a point, the more politics, the less fish!
I think the reasons for the positions being put forward by some provincial governments come down to one. Their interest is because they can see fisheries is on the rise, they can see they need more jobs, and everyone has a natural tendency to think he could run the show better if he had the power. The trouble is, a single province can never really have final power. It is impossible to divide up a migratory common property resource in a satisfactory way, in such a limited area, and among so many interests.
Some may say we can have it both ways-provincial jurisdiction over fishing, various committees to co-ordinate matters, and the federal government to deal with research and international negotiations. Some hold up the regional councils in the United States as an example. But the regional councils have great difficulties in regulating fisheries, as we have learned on Georges Bank, and they would have even greater difficulties if their coast had huge internal multiprovincial pools like the Bay of Fundy and the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
I want to turn now to an issue which is one of the most urgent and important aspects of fisheries development, and that is licensing. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) recently announced that his department's process of consultation with fishermen, processors and others in the industry, has been pretty well concluded, and that steps are now under way to implement a new licensing policy on the east coast. I want to welcome this initiative, and to urge members opposite to give the proposals their thoughtful consideration and support.
I should explain that the first move toward a new licensing policy was taken in late 1978, when the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans initiated a thorough review of prevailing conditions. Officials of the department held two rounds of consultations with fishermen during the winter of 1978-79, and the findings and recommendations of that study came to be known as the Levelton report. After that report was made public in June, 1979, another round of consultations was held with fishermen and other representatives of the industry, to assess their reactions and opinions. A broad outline of the government's proposals has already been referred to today by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming).
Over all, the new system should give fishermen a more direct voice in matters having to do with licensing, and make the whole regime more equitable. I know that all hon. members would want to join me in encouraging the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to continue his progress in implementing such a system.
Licences are necessary in the fishery in the same manner as such controls are necessary in other industries, Mr. Speaker. But we should never forget that, like any other resource based industry-mining, forestry, you name it-the fishery is subject to limits. It is an industry based on a finite resource. We tend to understand that about other resource industries. For example, nobody in his right mind would send 50 loggers into a forestry project if only 25 were required, or send 100 miners into a mine that should employ only 50. The same sort of respect for reality needs to be practised in the fishery. And the reality is that there is a good living to be made, but by a finite number of people.
This government's belief in and support of the fishing industry are manifested in many ways, Mr. Speaker. 1 have already provided the House with some statistics that show Canada's success in the export markets of the world. Our fishery enjoys a high reputation for the quality of its products. But we have to acknowledge that some parts of the industry could do a better job to maintain the consistency of quality. It is for this reason that the government this summer launched a major program to help the industry establish consistently high quality standards. The purpose of this program is to help those engaged in the fishery get more dollars for every pound of fish caught and, at the same time, ensure the consumer of a nutritious and delicious product.
The government's program to adopt new quality requirements has been developed in consultation with the industry. It will include the following main elements: a process of inspecting vessels and certifying them as properly equipped to pre-
October 27, 1980

serve the quality of fish; an improvement in handling practices on board vessels; the establishment of a system for grading the quality of fish landed; the setting of quality standards for the unloading, handling and transport of fish ashore; the introduction of rigorous quality control programs in fish processing plants; and the introduction of equally demanding standards for final products.
I also want to take this opportunity to welcome the announcement by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to create a new separate management region for the fishery in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. This arrangement will provide a co-ordinated focus for management of the fisheries in this area which is, after all, one ecological complex. It makes sense to have a single administration of a resource in which fishermen from five provinces participate.
The new management arrangement, as it has been outlined by the minister, will provide more affective, consistent policy and directional guidance, and help to promote increased cooperation between government and industry. The problems and priorities of the Gulf are often different from those experienced along the Atlantic offshore, so that the new region will be better equipped to meet these concerns.
When one realizes that more than 12,500 fishermen from all five eastern provinces participate in the Gulf fishery, and that the landed value of the main species last year was more than $70 million, we get some idea of the importance of this area to the economy of eastern Canada. Of the 100 processing plants surrounding the Gulf, 17 are operated by co-operatives, and 25 are operated as family businesses. Of the remaining 58, some 17 are branch plant operations of firms whose principal fish processing operations are located outside the Gulf area. Only 13 of the plants are supplied, in part, by company-owned vessels and well over 90 per cent of the raw material is supplied by fishermen who own their own vessels.
Up to 7,400 people find seasonal employment in the Gulf groundfish processing industry. Of these, 2,100 are employed in Newfoundland, 200 on the north shore of the Gulf, and 5,100 in the southwest area of the Gulf. Through the creation of the new management region, more attention can be given to ways of making the groundfishery in the Gulf more competitive by cost-reducing techniques, product development, diversification, market development and extension.
Details of the new region, such as its precise boundaries, the location of the headquarters, and the resources required, have not yet been determined. 1 am sure all members will be interested in this information when it becomes available.
There are those in the industry who argue that Canada needs more freezer-trawlers, and even factory freezer-trawlers. To those I would point out that, taken together, the inshore and nearshore fleet of independently-owned vessels are the backbone of our fishing industry. These boats far exceed the offshore fleet in value of landings, number of boats, and number of fishermen. They are the basic source of life of the hundreds of fishing communities in whose name this government negotiated the 200-mile limit. When the question is asked for whom the fishery is being developed, we have to
Fishing Industry
think in the first instance of the independent, inshore and nearshore fishermen.
The allocation of the fishery resource has been subject to a tug-of-war for a long time, but care must be taken to avoid parcelling out fish on the basis of "to the strongest, the spoils" Some would defend the rights of large vessels owned by large companies to roam to the very shore, on the basis of "rugged individualism"; but who is a more rugged individual than the small fisherman, owning his own boat, and counting on a fair chance at the nearby fish?
Canada argued before the world for the 200-mile zone, not so a few major companies could earn more dividends, but in the name of the small coastal communities. The shareholders of large corporations deserve their fair returns. The allocating of fish must be done for a variety of reasons, not just because it is economical, but also for community survival, for the preservation of a way of life, for the needs of the marketplace, for the reasonable well-being of fishermen and plant workers, and so on.
We need not worship the idea of a 12-month trawler fishery above all. Nor for that matter need we worship inshore fishery claims to exclusiveness, in a case where allowing only an inshore fishery might mean just six weeks work and nine months of unemployment insurance. Common sense reference points are required in establishing quotas and allocating fish between fleets.
1 was pleased the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans convened a seminar this year with representatives of the fishing industry and the provincial governments of the Atlantic region to discuss Gulf of St. Lawrence groundfish. Such meetings have given fishermen, processors and the provincial governments an opportunity to participate in both short and long-range planning for a variety of fisheries. I understand that additional seminars will be held this fall and winter, and I think the minister should be congratulated for this practice of involving the industry representatives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: Before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about expectations. While it is certainly foolhardy to set our sights too low, we can run into a considerable amount of trouble if we expect too much of the fisheries. We have to resist the temptation to view the fisheries as the cure for all economic ills, to end unemployment, to roll back regional disparities and to work all manner of miracles. The fishery can make an important and a continuing contribution, but not a boundless contribution.
I congratulate the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for his enlightened leadership. I congratulate the government for adopting this enlightened leadership and for adopting policies and programs for the betterment of the industry.


Mr. MacKay:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Henderson) entertain a brief question on policy?

October 27, 1980
Adjournment Motion


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired. However, the question can be asked with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday at Pictou, Nova Scotia, I had many inquiries from people in the industry, specifically from Mr. Nickerson and officials of Ferguson Industries Limited. Could the parliamentary secretary give the House any idea what his government's policy will be about the subsidy assistance given for the construction of seiner trawlers and other vessels which are so vital to the success of the industry? The parliamentary secretary has just spoken so comprehensively about this, and many people are depending on it to provide employment to reduce regional disparity.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, normally the parliamentary secretary does not speak on policy matters. I shall leave that to the minister and the hon. member can ask the question of him at a later date.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)- Statute Law (Military and Civilian War Pensions, Compensation and Allowances) Amendment Act, 1980-Inquiry respecting reduction of phasing-in period for veterans' widows; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Penitentiaries-Hostage-taking incidents-Danger posed to guards- Inquiry as to government action; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Indian Affairs-Funding of band housing.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Miller:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry, as demonstrated
(a)	by betraying the interests of Canadian fishermen in its international fisheries negotiations with the United States;
(b)	by the imposition of unconscionably high interest rates and other policies which have led to instability in the fishing industry and inadequate income protection for Canadian fishermen;
(c)	by its lack of action to devise and implement the long-promised revisions in policies regulating the industry; and
(d)	by its lack of action to enforce existing legislation protecting our fisheries.
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in this debate this afternoon and to compliment my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller). He has roundly and soundly condemned the government for their negligence in dealing with the fisheries of Canada's Atlantic coast, the west coast and the inland waters as well. I am afraid my remarks will not be quite as complimentary as those made by the previous speaker, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson).
What we have seen is 12 years of mismanagement of the fisheries of Canada, aside from a short nine-month period last year when certain initiatives were taken to sort out some of this mess. If hon. members opposite deny the validity of what 1 just said, perhaps they would be enlightened if I were to read the first sentence of a letter we recently received from the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). This letter was sent to members of Parliament who represent fishing communities, on October 10, 1980. The first sentence of the letter reads as follows:
As you know, there are serious problems facing the Pacific coast commercial salmon fishery which call for immediate action as well as longer term solutions. To assist me in deciding the best course of action, I recently asked Dr. Peter Pearse and Mr. Fern Doucet to meet with representatives of the provincial government and the Pacific fishing sector in order to examine the principal problems-
What we read is an admission by the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that there are serious problems in our Pacific coast fishery, resulting from years of mismanagement and neglect. As my colleague from Malpeque pointed out, the previous Progressive Conservative minister, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), initiated as his first act of office, a white paper policy review. Many people in the Department of Fisheries were involved and considerable funds were spent in preparing a new direction for Canada's fishery development in the eighties. For some reason this whole initiative has now been buried. The present minister will not report to this House on the findings of that major policy review which was conducted last year.
It was also an initiative of the previous Conservative government that the Sinclair and Levelton licensing reports were to have been reviewed by the standing committee in consultation with fishermen's groups. The present minister has done very little with regard to adopting, enacting or moving on the recommendations of Drs. Sinclair and Levelton.
The management initiatives that were taken during 1979 were very necessary and long overdue; on both coasts, for example, the establishment of a policy on freezer trawlers, the imposition of a moratorium on sea-licensed vessels on the west coast. The minister will know that, on the verge of our defeat
October 27, 1980

in this House last December, there were a number of very strident and some difficult policy announcements prepared, to be made, about which many of the Conservative minister's colleagues felt uncomfortable. However, they were necessary initiatives. The present minister has completely abdicated on them.
The previous minister also initiated a major review of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation which has been managing, developing and burgeoning into a vertically integrated Crown corporation, dominating the fishery from lakeside to the export of the product. The management practices of that corporation are highly questionable. The previous minister, the hon. member for St. John's East, initiated an in-depth study of that Crown corporation. The findings of that study were to have been presented in April at a meeting of fisheries ministers of the affected provinces. To date we have not heard anything from the present minister.
I commend the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on finally admitting that there is a problem with regard to the west coast fishery in particular, and initiating steps for a solution of that problem. He returned from vacation at the end of August and immediately initiated a study by Messrs. Pearse and Doucet, two gentlemen who are going to solve all of the problems for him.
We commend the initiative reflected in that study. However, we wonder what was happening the previous seven months of that minister's reincarnation. We now see that international negotiations are beginning to bear fruit. The minister was kind enough a couple of weeks ago to invite input and opinions from members on this side of the House, but not until the Pearse-Doucet study had been under way for some six or seven weeks. We were given 48 hours to respond before he was off to a meeting in British Columbia where he would reflect on our recommendations and those of others in meeting the representatives of the west coast industry.
We are also grateful that in recent weeks we learned that the budget for managing the Pacific coast fishery was increased by an additional $3 million on a $60 million budget and that additional funding will be directed toward increasing enforcement personnel in particular. We appreciate that.
I must repeat that it is ludicrous for a minister who was in office since 1974, and granted the opportunity of a brief sabbatical leave, to take seven months to get himself moving again on his return to office. It has been a disappointment to those on this side that he has taken so long in getting to work on the serious problems which face the west coast fisheries industry at least.
The motion put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni is in four parts. The first two parts deal with international negotiations and the question of high interest rates and the difficulties that poses for fishermen. I will touch on that rather quickly. 1 really want to deal for most of my talk with the third and fourth parts of the motion which question the management policies of the present government and the minister in his previous incarnation. As well, I want to deal with the lack of
Fishing Industry
adequate enforcement and protection of the habitat of the fishery.
First, with regard to international negotiations, meetings between the Canadian and United States negotiating teams have been far too infrequent. The approach to the problems of halibut and albacore tuna and the salmon interception, particularly affecting the Fraser River, has been piecemeal and reactionary to crises, sort of at the eleventh hour. There has been far too much of this last minute firefighting. For example, we knew in June and July there was a proposal which would have staved a crisis regarding albacore tuna which had been received by the minister and his department. They did nothing with that proposal until the U.S. tuna boats were already en route pursuing the albacore tuna once again into Canadian waters. The only way we avoided having once again to take U.S. fishermen into custody, as the previous minister did a year ago, was to come up with a last minute fix which many fishermen on the west coast feel was a sell out of our interests. It weakened our hand in negotiating with some of the other important concessions, particularly with regard to Fraser River salmon.
A great concern of mine with regard to international negotiations arises from the fact that members of Parliament and U.S. senators are not part of the process and are not even welcome at these negotiating sessions. I believe that slows down the process. It means that after an agreement is reached and signed as a tentative accord, it then has to be subjected to the real world of political pressures, as we saw with the east coast treaty, to the extent that all of that work may have been for naught because the political spokesmen do not fully understand the issues and the complexities behind the negotiations. I was disappointed when I asked in June to be permitted to observe the west coast negotiations which were held in Vancouver. The department, essentially, said no, my presence would not be welcomed there, although members of the fishing industry, members of the canning companies and of the various fishing organizations were welcomed, but it was not appropriate for a member of Parliament to be present. I really question that decision because I think that if we are going to make progress in these talks we must stop sitting back, as Canada usually does, and stop waiting for our American friends to put their cards on the table. We have to seize the initiative and we have to be realistic when it comes to the political factors which enter into these decisions. While we sit back on our complacent butts, the United States goes ahead and does as it wishes.
Although I am pleased to hear today that a tentative agreement is being struck for the west coast salmon interception problem, I am afraid that if we read this agreement carefully we will realize that all future increases of enhanced salmon stocks on the Fraser River will be given to Canada but we will have to pay the shot for enhancing them. That is an easy commitment for the Americans to make if there are no effective means of control to ensure that we do indeed reap the benefits of that enhanced stock.

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
1 will be running short of time, Mr. Speaker, so 1 will comment quickly on the interest rate matter. The NDP motion implies that the government can regulate interest rates. I suggest that the interest rate problem is a consequence of Canada's very unhealthy economy and our growing, continuing and deepening vulnerability to the deficits that this government is incurring. But the government does have the opportunity, through the Federal Business Development Bank and the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act, to assist fishermen. In particular, this House would, when we revised the Fisheries Improvement Loans Act in June, have demanded that the chartered banks which lend money to fishermen, guarantee an interest rate for at least a five-year term, because at present I have many constituents who come to me saying, "We have a loan with the Federal Business Development Bank at 7 per cent, 8 per cent or 9 per cent. It is expiring and suddenly they want 17 per cent".
I should like to tell you, Mr. Speaker, what the impact of that is on a couple of fishermen who happen to have a loan of a quarter of a million dollars on a seine boat, for example. The impact of an interest rate rising from 9 per cent or 10 per cent to 17 per cent would be in the order of $25,000 in one year. We have to realize that those two fishermen, who are employing a crew, meeting all their expenses and having to contend with dwindling stock levels, are taking home between $8,000 to $15,000 or perhaps $18,000 a year, and suddenly they are hit with an additional $25,000 a year. How will they pay it? They will have to contend with bankruptcy in many cases.
I think there are initiatives which the government can take. The small business development bonds which were proposed in our budget are effective means of bringing down interest rates. They should be extended to the fishery sector. There is also the mechanism of tax credits whereby those who are investing in fishing vessels are allowed to deduct their interest expenses from income immediately before calculating taxable income.
As hon. members on the other side often point out, and as the minister is fond of saying, we have a problem in the west coast fishery of too many vessels chasing too few fish. We have an excess capacity of fishing vessels relative to the available stock level. I have to ask: who created this problem? Why did it come to this point in 1980 when we have far too many vessels and, in particular, when we have five or six hundred of the largest vessels, the seine vessels, which have accumulated tonnages, to some extent, on the basis of vessels which were sold under the federally-sponsored buy-back program in the 1970s? Now we have the ludicrous situation where these large seine vessels are abie to fish a few hours a week in the summer if they are lucky, whereas the troll fleet is out fishing seven days a week and for a considerably longer period of time.
We have so much fishing power concentrated in this fleet of large seine vessels that they are only allowed to fish a few hours a week, and they are still economically viable on that basis. They may not be attractive in terms of employing large numbers of people, but the owners argue that they are the best return on investment capital. Perhaps we cannot argue with
that if we believe that they are husbanding the resource as effectively as the trawlers and the gillnet vessels do.
We have a number of other problems with the west coast fishery. We have the problem of an inadequate emphasis on the salmon enhancement program, especially with respect to the more choice natural stocks of sockeye, Chinook and such species running into the Fraser River system. We are putting a lot of effort into enhancing the cheaper varieties of salmon and none at all into the salmon enhancement facilities which should be built and under way on the Fraser River system.
We have a situation where there is inadequate enforcement, and only $4 million of the west coast fisheries budget, out of some $50 million, is devoted to provision of salaries for enforcement personnel numbering around 115 officers on the whole of the British Columbia coast.
There is too much waste of juvenile fish being thrown overside or being caught as a by-catch or of other species which a fisherman is not allowed to fish which is being caught be accident and thrown overboard because he is not allowed to take it to dockside. One wonders if we are really being wise in encouraging this waste by requiring that fishermen not bring to shore fish which they should not have caught in the first place. One wonders if it might not be much better to require that they not be allowed to throw fish overboard and that they account for their actions when they get to shore if they were fishing out of their zone, in an area where they should not have been. The onus would then be on the fisherman to explain why that happened.
We have a serious problem with poaching and the illegal selling of fish in the lower Fraser Valley in particular, and the ministry seems to be doing very little about that.
With regard to solutions, Mr. Speaker, there are two classes of solutions to the problem of too many vessels chasing too few fish. The minister knows very well that one type of solution has to do with conservation, that is to say, we have to find ways to stop over-Fishing. The other solution is to enhance what we have, to increase the supply of Fish. On the conservation side, it is, I believe, important that we establish a nominal allocation of the available catch among the three sectors of the salmon fleet and, for want of a better number, I would say that perhaps it should be allocated one-third each way. We must allocate between the two sectors of the herring-roe fishery, the seine and the gillnet fishermen who have been sharing that resource in recent years relatively equally.
To impose an allocation scheme requires a political decision, and I suggest that the present minister must show the courage necessary to take that political decision and tell each sector of the industry that they will fish with one gear type and that this will be allocated in accordance with recent historical precedent. He should tell them that upon completion of each fishing year the department would record the value of catches by these various gear types and plan their management policies for the next year in order to ensure that the allocation is properly met by imposing restrictions and regulations on the size of hooks, whether or not they should be barbless, the net size, and other area restrictions. The department has the power
October 27, 1980

to adjust the relative catch of the various types of gear in order to maintain a fair sharing of the resource among the various gear types.
If I have another moment or two, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that it seems to me, if you have a formula for allocating the catch between the gear types, if there is a question of too much fishing power, we should leave it to the investors in those various gear types to decide whether they want to buy out some of their competitors. We should look at the possibility of a voluntary or self-operated buy-back program. If we have 500 of the same vessels and if those owners feel they are not getting enough action individually, perhaps they should pay a portion each year on their licence fee in order to fund the buy-back program. The same boat owners could fund their own buy-back program, and the gillnetters and trollers could do likewise. This would enable the initiative to be placed upon the investors in these vessels to decide for themselves whether they are willing to contend with excess competition, being subject to a specific quota of fish, or whether they want indeed to reduce the number of vessels in their sector of the industry.
On the enhancement side-and I see I do not have any additional time left-I just want to say that we must put much greater emphasis on enhancing the salmon stocks in the Fraser River system. We cannot wait until our friends across the way resolve the problem with the Americans. We have to invest in those important hatchery and enhancement facilities in the Fraser system now if we are going to realize a benefit from them by the end of this decade. So, we must do that. We must finance the enhancement projects, and I believe the fishermen are prepared to assist in financing those projects through some form of cash royalty if it goes into a dedicated fund specifically earmarked for SEP projects and if they have representation on a board of trustees which administers that fund.
Thank you for waiting for an extra moment, Mr. Speaker. I will take my seat.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, the motion presented today is very important, and I would like to elaborate on some of the remarks made by my colleagues, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and also to acknowledge the significant contribution made by other hon. members on this side of the House who have spoken.
Some of the things which disturbed me in this afternoon's debate were the statements by the present Parliament Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Henderson) and those by the previous one. What disturbed me about their comments was the implication that basically all is well in the fishing industry and that things are generally improving. The only conclusion I can draw is that the comments of somebody from downtown Toronto commenting on the fishing industry may be a little distorted, and although such a person may not have the age and experience to have seen the development of the west coast industry or the east coast industry and the way things have progressed over the years, I urge him to consider
Fishing Industry
that the unanimous opinion of most of the people involved, especially in this House, is that it is in very serious jeopardy on the west coast.
The present parliamentary secretary had the fortunate experience of being able to travel to my riding and to take a few of the more choice species on the hook. I have certainly enjoyed the experience and acquired some fairly good insights, but obviously the hon. member must need another trip out there. I encourage him to return and to look more deeply into what appears to be a very serious problem which may not be apparent at first blush.
In my presentation today I would like to deal specifically with things which affect my riding. Some of the comments I have made before, but they could be reinforced here. In my riding there are two basic industries, fishing and forestry. Forestry, of course, is the prime one, but the fishing industry is vitally important to those people who live in small communities. Under the present management practices of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, what has been happening on the west coast is that many small communities are in very serious jeopardy. The only thing many of the Indian communities have had to depend on over the years is forestry, and over the years they have been deprived of access to the forest resource. Unfortunately the only other asset is fishing, and that is being constantly curtailed, which I suggest places them in difficult straits.
In many of those communities we see unemployment rates which hinge around 75 per cent, and in an especially poor season when the canneries are not working and employment is restricted, Indian access to the resource generally and to licences, vessels and processing is minimal, and the picture looks very bleak. I suggest to the present parliamentary secretary that in fact that industry is in a very difficult situation in relation to some consideration of its historic appearance. Some people are doing well, but a very large number are doing poorly under the present system, and the prognosis is very grim.
I would like to deal with four aspects of the problem as I see it, and they deal basically with the management question, the environment question, the enhancement of the Pacific coast species, and the allocation of catch.
First, with regard to the environment, both of my colleagues, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni and the hon. member for Skeena, have outlined their very serious concerns, but in my riding I face a number of serious concerns, as do the fishermen there. For example, there are large areas on the west coast of British Columbia, on Vancouver Island, and on the Queen Charlottes which are very rich in coal, and we are going to see a tremendous resource conflict.
We have the prospect of open-pit coal mining. Studies have been undertaken by the Department of the Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans which say that this open-pit coal mining can go ahead. Proposals are already in. Second-stage studies are completed, and it looks as if we will be having open-pit coal mines. In the future, as we make the transition from oil and gas, we will see a tremendous influx of

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
open-pit coal mines. From my listening at public meetings and in discussions with officials in the department I have learned that we have not even begun to consider the drastic consequences for our fishing resources. As a matter of fact, just southwest of Campbell River an open-pit coal mine will be built in the headwaters to one of the major show hatcheries at Quinsam. I have never heard of such a contradiction; nevertheless, processing and an open-pit coal mine will be allowed. There really is no appreciation of what is going to happen there.
However, that is only the beginning. There will be numerous attempts to develop that coal resource as the pressure on us increases. What will happen is that coal will go in and fisheries will go out.
Another contradiction in developing those open-pit coal mines is that the department and other individuals who are developing them are trying to reassure us that the department has sufficient monitoring and enforcement capabilities to see that those coal developers follow the guidelines laid down, yet we wind up with enforcement people telling us that they do not have the person-years, the budget nor the time to deal with all the problems in the fisheries. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) mentioned a $3 million increase in the enforcement section of the budget. That will not scratch the surface when we consider the tremendous development which will be going on.
There are numerous examples. We have the Amax situation and the pending situation at Campbell River. Mining is only one aspect of it, but the situation will become very serious in the future, and we are completely unprepared to meet what I feel will be the total destruction of our fish-rearing habitat as a result.
The forest industry, the number one industry in British Columbia, has been the number one competitor for land use as between fisheries and forestry, and essentially the predominant industry under provincial control is basically eroding the available habitat for fish rearing.
In the past loggers have come in and logged out the valley bottoms where the quick, cheap timber is available. Erosion and destruction of streams for spawning and juvenile fish rearing has been total. We wind up with flooding. Once the spawning species have gone up, the soil can no longer hold moisture and when there are heavy rains, they simply flush the system out totally. If we head up through the area around Bella Coola, we find that where there once were spawning streams we now just have conduits which run water down, and there is no spawning capability.
The unregulated forest industry has gone a long way in the past toward destroying the habitat on which this resource is based. The Kimsquit Valley will be logged out. In that area chums and a variety of other species are raised. We saw what happened at Riley Creek, and until that conflict is resolved satisfactorily and until the department has the capability of enforcing habitat protection, with laws which are essentially on the books, we will not find that our habitat will be
preserved, and the resource will eventually be eroded out from underneath us.
Also with regard to the environment, as we come down the coast of British Columbia and down Vancouver Island, we find that the demand for land use in every estuary is for industrial purposes, for the dumping of municipal sewage or for land fill. Essentially we are giving up an area which is probably far more productive in its food raising capability than any farmland in British Columbia. I would point to the Comox estuary where there have been landfill projects. It was felt that the best place to build a sewage lagoon was right in the middle of that valuable productive estuary. Industries in that particular valley locate right smack in the middle of the estuary. They do not locate in other areas somewhat farther away where it might be slightly more difficult for them to develop. Every single development, every piece of landfill poured in there and every piece of sewage poured in there destroys the capability to raise fish. We are witnessing the destruction of the resource.
I should like to turn to the Campbell River estuary. The municipality of Campbell River appealed to the federal government for assistance in relocating industry, stopping further encroachment and trying to reverse some of the tremendous damage which has been done. We are now in the process of a new project in the Comox estuary which will dump more raw sewage. Basically we need a commitment on the part of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and on the part of the provincial government of British Columbia to move quickly to preserve its extremely valuable fish rearing and food raising capabilities. But I do not see any action. I just see continuous and serious erosion in such areas along the entire coast.
Turning to the Fraser River, in the area in which I was born and raised, I had quite a shock the other day. On various occasions I have walked a good piece of that river from Mission to its mouth on both sides. I was under the impression that it was still in the state it was when I was much younger. The trip up that river in a fish boat the other day scared me, and I say that seriously. Not only is there a tremendous load and discharge of sewage, chemical wastes, poisons of all sorts and varieties into it, but there seems to be a structural change in that river designed to get rid of marshes and fishery habitat competing for land use in its estuary and, I guess, the associated fish-supporting aspects of that river. It has been mentioned before, but 1 should like to add my voice to it: with the destruction of that river will probably come the destruction of the fishing industry in the province of British Columbia. That river is in such a serious state right now that a parliamentary task force should be set up to study what is taking place.
The provincial government of British Columbia seems committed to asserting its constitutional authority. That is probably the only explanation we could give for some of the more bizarre aspects of its policymaking. It had the recent misfortune of one of the ministers in charge of lands coming out to my riding and stating that they were declaring a moratorium on booming grounds in Baynes Sound, an area located along
October 27, 1980

the shoreline of my riding. They were declaring a moratorium after they had let MacMillan Bloedel build one more big booming ground. The purpose of the press release was to suggest that the moratorium would apply after this big booming ground had been completed. Bark drops and decays and hydrogen sulphide develop and poison the water so that fish and fry can no longer use it and those areas stay poisoned for roughly 25 years. There are areas in the Comox estuary where these same logging companies have deposited a layer of bark and decaying material in which there is no oxygen and a substantial amount of hydrogen sulphide; no fish are capable of living in such waters. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary-and 1 would suggest it to the minister if he were here- that action on environmental issues associated with the fisheries would bear tremendous benefits, especially assertive action which would protect the base upon which the entire industry is structured. This is extremely important, and I suggest the minister and the government of the country have been negligent in defending that aspect.
We desperately need a coast-line management act to protect foreshore, estuary and habitat. There is not much point in continuing discussion of the Kemano project after the hon. member for Skeena has dealt with it but I should like to suggest one further aspect. The Kemano project is a conflict in resources; electricity has become more valuable than fish. When we look at its location, it is on the central coast of British Columbia. Some of the streams will eventually back up, ensuring a decrease in fishing, fish habitat and fishery capabilities on the central coast of British Columbia. It will be one further erosion of the capacity of people in that area to earn a living, as well as constituting an environmental disaster. Basically we are suffering from a tremendous degree of negligence in terms of preserving the environment upon which the west coast fishing industry relies. When we lose this environment-and we are continuing to lose it at a faster and faster rate-then we will not have to worry about buy-back programs, overcapitalization, a salmon enhancement program, reserving manpower or budgetary requirements, because we will have destroyed the capability to support that industry. It is extremely important that this be recognized and acted upon.
I think the area of management has been covered pretty well today. We have looked at the question of research, enforcement, the licensing scheme, possibilities for the allocation of fish, overcapitalization and so on; we have talked about consultation and concentration. Some key topics were developed today in terms of their impact upon the west coast fishery, but I should like to add a few comments of my own. Research is extremely important. It does not show. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni suggested that it is not a very glamorous aspect and that it takes a lot of input over a long period of time before benefits are developed. It does not show like a new hatchery or a new fishing vessel. But it is absolutely vital. If we cut back long-term research commitments, or if we cut
Fishing Industry
back on research at all, we will pay the price in the long run, because we will not be able to support the industry.
Other bizarre things seem to be happening there. Rather than budgeting or paying out of the budget for a planned research program, we now seem to be bargaining to get fishing vessel owners to undertake support programs for research, and we are paying them with a catch allocation. We seem to have grabbed the Japanese to come in and to research for us, because we are not willing to pay Canadian vessel owners to undertake some of that research. We are exchanging research undertakings for the right to catch fish. I suggest that is absolutely wrong. Since it is one of the pillars that support this very vital industry, we must plan our long-term research commitment and we must allocate the required resources. We should be supporting Canadian vessel owners and Canadian crews in undertaking that research, in developing the expertise within our own industry. Essentially we should be creating that employment and expertise here so that we can improve our own industry and not turn it back to the Japanese. Enough of it is controlled there already.
I would like to express my thoughts on enforcement, as well. We do not have enough fisheries officers. The government seems to be committed to cutbacks in staffing, in support services, in a whole variety of areas. There is a mentality which favours cutting back the civil service which provides these very vital services to the citizens of this country. It appears to me, though, that if we withdraw budget support for these essential programs we are really adopting on a penny wise and pound foolish approach. We should make a solid commitment to enforcement, provide expert fisheries personnel who can monitor these environmental problems, go after violators who degrade the natural habitat, and see to the enforcement of conservation program. Not only that, in the final analysis the government has got to back them up when they lay charges, when they say, for example, that a foreshore should not be paved in order to meet values which are less in the long term than the value of the fisheries. The government should be backing these people up. Without such backing, financial commitment and person-years, we might as well forget it because we will never really know what is developing and what is going wrong in that industry.
Enforcement is an extremely serious part of this process and we are not living up to our full commitment. With respect to the licensing scheme the two parliamentary secretaries who preceded me said it had come out better than sliced bread. Well, judging from the people I dealt with-this is probably the single largest file in my office-there are tremendous problems. People have been put out of the industry and lost their livelihood because of that licensing system.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
4130

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry


Raymond John Skelly: 1 thank hon. members for giving me the opportunity to sum up. The licensing scheme has been a disaster, but 1 would like to move to the question of allocation, which was dealt with by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni and the hon. member for Skeena. The allocation situation appears to be far more complicated. What will happen is this: we will reach a situation in which there will be allocating between sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and Indian communities. Many coastal Indian communities are absolutely dependent upon that resource. A commitment has to be made to the Indian people which will assure them of access to that resource so that they can support their communities at a financial or economic level which will allow them to lead what we consider to be a decent life. If we are to resolve unemployment and some of these financial problems and give a certain independence to those Indian communities, they must be considered in that allocation program. So when we are speaking of allocation we are not just talking about sports fishing or commercial fishing, we are not just talking about gear-type, we are talking as well about providing an allocation to a group in British Columbia whose only option, in many cases, because of the geographic location in which they find themselves is to resort to that resource.
With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members and resume my seat.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate although 1 note it is an opposition day. In my opening remarks I would like to refer to the first part of the motion which says:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry, as demonstrated
(a) by betraying the interests of Canadian fishermen in its international fisheries negotiations with the United States;
Before I deal with that particular topic I would like to clarify a few inconsistencies which I believe have become evident here today. I believe it was the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) who made some comments in relation to the Atlantic Salmon Advisory Board. He indicated that the minister was not involved in the process, nor in the past was he in the habit of using this particular board. It is my understanding that this is incorrect. I am told that the minister has met with the chairman and vice-chairman of this board on numerous occasions and that he has asked several members of the board to undertake specific consultations regarding the possibility of reopening the fisheries in the areas where a ban was imposed-I believe this took place some time in 1972.
I understand that these consultations have now been completed and that the minister will soon be meeting with those concerned to hear their advice. Dealing with the wider aspect, I believe the minister is prepared to listen to these officials, as well as others, on all aspects of the Atlantic salmon management.
There were also a few comments made by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) with regard to the policy
affecting freezer-trawlers and factory freezer-trawlers. The present government has not altered the previous government's policy of licensing vessels to fish underutilized species but otherwise of issuing no further groundfish licenses. And none have been issued. It is my understanding that only one holder of an underutilized species licence has acquired a vessel. Some have suggested that given the economics of fishing such species, the previous government may have given some people a licence to go bankrupt.
I think it would be useful to review the steps and events in our relationship with the United States over the past four years as they relate to fisheries. This review will indicate the efforts which have been made to protect the interests of fishermen on both our coasts. Canada and the United States each extended their fisheries jurisdiction to 200 miles in 1977-Canada on January 1, 1977, for both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and the U.S.A. on March 1, 1977. In the period preceding these extensions, negotiations had been initiated between the two countries to try to develop an agreement which would protect the interests of the fishermen of both countries when extensions of jurisdiction came into effect. These negotiations were under way when the Canadian extension came into force and Canada acted, at that time, to protect the negotiating process by passing an order in council to allow United States vessels to continue fishing in Canadian waters until a reciprocal fisheries agreement was completed. The assumption of the Canadian government at that time was that if negotiations for a reciprocal agreement were not completed by March 1, the date on which the U.S. extension would come into force, Canada would expect interim treatment of the same kind for Canadian fishermen until the negotiations were concluded.
As things worked out, an interim reciprocal fisheries agreement applicable to both east and west coasts was worked out. It was effective from February 14, 1977, to the end of the year. The first reciprocal agreement in the period following extensions of jurisdiction had two primary objectives. The first was to allow fishermen of both countries to continue their existing fishing patterns. The second objective was to avoid conflict or prejudice to legal claims in the boundary regions by ensuring that neither party would licence third countries to fish within the area of overlapping claims and providing for flag state enforcement by Canada and the United States, that is, within the area of overlapping claims Canadian laws would apply to, and be enforced against, only Canadian fishermen and the United States would take similar action with respect to United States vessels. This interim agreement was amended in 1978, subject to ratification by both countries. The amendments were designed to deal with problems which had developed under the fisheries agreement of 1977, particularly those involving troll fishing for salmon on the west coast. However, problems continued over the salmon troll fishery on the west coast while the 1978 agreement was being provisionally applied pending ratification.
Because of these difficulties, the Canadian government suspended provisional implementation of the agreement in June,
October 27, 1980

1978, and it was never ratified. The result of this suspension was that the U.S. fishermen were excluded from the Canadian fishing zone and Canadian fishermen were excluded from the U.S. fishing zone except for special arrangements for halibut fishing under the halibut fishing treaty on the west coast. Fishing by both countries continued, of course, in the areas of overlapping claims on both coasts.
The supsension of reciprocal fishing by the Canadian government in 1978 was a serious step taken with the full support of the Canadian fishing industry to protect Canadian interests. It had become obvious to both the government and the industry that the U.S. government was subject to powerful influences which were making it difficult or impossible for the United States to live up to its commitment to Canada. The suspension of reciprocal fishing at the initiative of the Canadian government avoided the creation of a situation where U.S. fishermen would be obtaining benefits in Canadian waters out of balance with the benefits Canadian fishermen were obtaining in U.S. waters.
The suspension also served notice to the United States that the Government of Canada would not let the interests of the Canadian fishing industry be eroded under pressure and that any agreement reached with the United States would have to be based on an equitable balancing of benefits and interests. Even though the reciprocal fishing agreement of 1978 never came into force, the arrangement between the two countries on how to handle fishing in the boundary areas was continued under, what I might call a gentleman's agreement.
The gentleman's agreement continued the same regime for the boundary areas as applied under the reciprocal agreements. That is, neither country would licence foreign fishing vessels to fish in the area of overlapping claims and there would be flag state enforcement by the United States and Canada. Canada and the United States now undertook an entirely new initiative to try to resolve both boundaries and fisheries on both coasts through the designation of special negotiators for this purpose, Ambassador Marcel Cadieux for Canada and Mr. Lloyd Cutler for the U.S.A.
I do not wish to dwell at length on the pros and cons of these complex negotiations. Suffice it to say that the negotiations for agreements on boundaries and fisheries on the west coast failed, but after a great deal of work by the special negotiators, the negotiating teams and the fishing industries of both sides, an agreement on the east coast was achieved, and signed on March 29, 1979.
The signing of the complex east coast fisheries agreement may be considered both a tribute to the negotiating teams and a reflection of the painstaking care by the negotiating teams to work out a fair balance between the fishing interests of both countries on a stock by stock and percentage point by percentage point basis.
First of all, the agreement refers the boundary issue to international adjudication. Next, and of overriding significance, the agreement provides for conservation of the fish stocks in the Georges Bank area for the periods both preceding and following the eventual settlement of the boundary by
Fishing Industry
establishing a fisheries commission to manage the stocks, and effective arbitration mechanisms to ensure that those stocks will not suffer from any failure to reach agreement within the commission.
Finally, the agreement provides an insurance policy for the fishermen of both countries. No matter where the boundary is placed as a result of the international adjudication, each country is given a fixed percentage entitlement from the total allowable catch limit to be set each year for each stock. This will provide stability for the fishermen of both countries. But the system also provides for a considerable degree of flexibility. The agreed percentage shares are subject to review every ten years, with reductions in shares possible for a variety of reasons. There are ceilings on the amount of the possible reductions for each decade, and a maximum ceiling to avoid the possibility that any group of fishermen would find itself totally excluded from a stock in which it has had a traditional interest.
The situation on the west coast has progressed somewhat differently. Given the impasse reached in the boundaries and fisheries negotiations, discussions between the two countries have focused on individual stocks and, indeed, individual problems.
The salmon interception negotiations have carried on, continuing along the lines developed since the negotiations began in the early 1970s. A full report on the meeting in Seattle last week, which I understand met with some success, is now in the process of being prepared.
Canadian halibut Fishermen continue to have access to U.S. waters off Alaska under arrangements worked out two years ago, which are to terminate on or about March 31, 1981. This was in exchange for allowing the U.S. fishermen access to groundfish off the Canadian Pacific coast. It is difficult to say at this time what is likely to happen to this area of reciprocity in 1981-82, but a major success for both countries is that we have kept the Halibut Commission in existence to provide an institutional framework for co-operation between the two countries on halibut conservation.
Finally, as hon. members know, we have had difficulties with the U.S.A. over albacore tuna in the Pacific coast. However, I believe we are well on the way toward a treaty which will provide substantial benefits to Canadian fishermen through access to U.S. ports to sell their tuna catches.
We should not, of course, overlook the fact that difficult issues lie ahead on the west coast. Boundaries remain to be settled, and we are still considerably short of a comprehensive framework to govern conservation and fisheries between Canada and the U.S.A. The difficulties we have had with the east coast agreement must inevitably give rise to misgivings about the possibilities, but the Government of Canada will continue to press for the adoption of a rational relationship with the U.S.A. on both our coasts so as to protect the interests of all those involved in the fishing industry.
On a final note-and I can see, Mr. Speaker, that my time is coming to a close-I believe the hon. member for Malpeque

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
(Mr. Gass) indicated that he condemns the government for dragging its heels on the east coast American-Canadian fisheries agreement. I do not know the hon. member would suggest to resolve that particular impasse. That problem lies in the hands of the Senate of the United States. At some point 1 would be interested to hear a suggestion from him in terms of encouraging the U.S. Senate to approve this particular agreement.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?
[ Translation]


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock, the Elouse took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion presently before the House since I represent a constituency in Nova Scotia where more than one-third of my constituents are directly or indirectly involved in the fishing industry.
The motion moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alber-ni (Mr. Miller) states, among other things:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry, as demonstrated
(a) by betraying the interests in Canadian fishermen in its international
fisheries negotiations with the United States;
Later, it goes on to say:
(d) by its lack of action to enforce existing legislation protecting our fisheries.
I well remember the statement made on March 29, 1979, by the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Don Jamieson and, of course, the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). The statement, which was released with considerable fanfare, indicated that four agreements had been signed with the United States; two relating to the Atlantic coast and two concerning the Pacific coast. The East Coast Fishery Resource Agreement established a Canada-U.S. fisheries commission and provided for co-operative management and access and entitlement to specific stocks of mutual concern.
The treaty to submit the delineation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine area to binding dispute settlement provided for the submission of a case to a five-judge chamber of the International Court of Justice for a final decision on the placement of the boundary. In the event that the International Court of Justice was unable to function under the formula mutually agreed upon by the governments of Canada and the United States, the dispute was to be automatically referred to a five-member independent international court of arbitration.
The East Coast Fishery Resource Agreement and the halibut protocol were submitted to the United States administration and to the United States Senate for its advice and consent. Although these treaties were signed by the Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Lloyd Cutler, serving as the special representatives of the President of the United States, and by Canada's ambassador Peter M. Towe and special negotiator Marcel Cadieux, to date no action has been taken on this important matter by the United States Senate.
In my opinion this is a flagrant abuse of power by the United States Senate and today, these ineffective treaties represent the biggest single issue Canada has with any particular country. The fact that our Department of External Affairs and our Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been unable to bring any pressure to bear on the United States Senate such as would lead to ratification and approval of these treaties is a sad commentary on the relations which presently exist between our two countries.
Canada, and Canadians, stand by the agreement as signed by the United States administration. We made that fact abundantly clear to the United States senators and congressmen in Washington on Wednesday July 23, 1980. Concerned as we are over the lack of action by Washington on this important matter, the delegation under the chairmanship of Hon. Hartland Molson, assisted by Hon. Richard Donahoe and Hon. Charles Elman plus nine members of the House of Commons, representative of all parties, met with nine American senators including Senator Claiborne Pell and Senator Edward Kennedy and with 11 congressmen in order to try to clarify our position.
We pointed out that the Canadian government cannot, in effect, accept renegotiation of the agreement with the United States Senate. In our view, if amendments are proposed by the Senate these would likely upset the delicate balance achieved after a year and a half of intensive negotiations and would work to the disadvantage of Canadian fishermen since the United States terms of access would undoubtedly be increased.
We also pointed out that amendment or rejection of the agreement could have a serious effect on Canada's bilateral fisheries relations with the United States and might well raise problems which could spill over into other areas.
Moreover, since the signing of the fishery agreement an increased American effort, especially for Georges Bank scallop, has already substantially diminished the share of Canadian fishermen in that stock at a time when the stock is going through a decreasing phase of its natural cycle.
During our discussion in Washington the U.S. senators argued that the treaty should be for a limited time, rather than permanent. I pointed out to them during my remarks that it allows for renegotiating catch shares every 10 years. The Americans wanted more scallops. In fact, the amendment moved by Senator Kennedy to the East Coast Fishery Resource Agreement stated that the agreement should terminate three years from the date of its entry into force. He also proposed further restrictions on Canadian scallop draggers operating on Georges Bank. Senator Kennedy believes that the
October 27, 1980

United States should control scallop management. Unfortunately, as I speak to you tonight, the United States still has no scallop management plan for its own fishermen. They have a groundfish management plan however, and for yellow tail flounder they set a quota of 10,000 pounds to be caught between October, 1979, and October, 1980.
By July of this year, United States fishermen had caught half as much fish again, which explains why Canadian fishermen have little or no faith in any United States management plan not backed up by an international treaty.
After my visit to Washington, there are some doubts in my mind that United States representatives who are opposing the treaty understand it. Maine governor Joseph Brennan does not agree the treaty is perpetual. He says the fisheries are always changing. This viewpoint overlooks the fact that fish on Georges Bank carry no passports. They can be Canadian today and American tomorrow, or vice versa. It overlooks the fact that the two sides must reconsider quotas every ten years and that the treaty, once approved, builds in joint management and dispute settling procedures.
Today there are more and more suggestions that Canadian fishermen should start taking all the groundfish, herring and scallops they can before the Americans do. Their reasoning is that action of this type would give Canadians more fish for the time being, thus making the United States government more conscious of the need for a long-term management treaty.
I am glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) in his seat tonight.-Another suggestion 1 have, if the treaties as they presently exist, are not soon ratified, would be to delink the boundary settlement from the fisheries treaty. As it is now, the boundary line treaty goes to arbitration only after the United States ratifies the fisheries treaty.
As soon as the presidential elections are over in the United States, I hope that our fisheries minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will go to Washington together for the purpose of recommending to the New England fishing interests, the U.S. senators and congressmen that their interests would best be served by prompt ratification of the treaties which Canada and the United States negotiators drew up with a view to protecting the stocks, as a result of which fishermen of both countries will benefit. Unless such an effort is made, Canada's fishermen will rightly share the view that this government is derelict in its duty, not only to them, but to Canadians generally.
I turn now to another contentious issue presently before the industry, namely the marketing problems faced by many large and small processors operating in Atlantic Canada. The present minister-and I regret he is not in the House this evening-has his own views concerning the industry's marketing problems. He expressed them in a rather uncomplimentary manner in some speeches this spring. These comments did not in any way help the industry in its marketing efforts, nor did they provide any solutions for improvement. To tell the indus-
Fishing Industry
try that there are possibilities outside downtown Boston, that they need to take out a wider map than the map of Massachusetts, is, if I might say so, through you, Mr. Speaker, somewhat beneath the minister's dignity. That the industry is facing some marketing problems is a known fact. What is equally true is that in some cases these problems are directly due to the actions or inactions of the present Liberal administration. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans refers to "solidly organized" marketing organizations which have a great deal of "clout"-and I am using his words-with which Canadians must compete, surely he is well aware that these organizations are highly subsidized by their governments.
Norway, for example, paid direct subsidies to its industry amounting to $180 million in 1979-$120 million in the first four months of 1980-and it has paid similar amounts in every year since 1974. In addition, Norway has an outstanding tariff preference in the very important European Common Market. Canadians have been selling significant quantities in Europe in spite of the tariff disadvantage we face on some major products. However, there is no doubt that the European economic community tariffs are being used in a discriminatory way against Canadian imports, and now their reference price system is also being invoked against Canada.
I would remind the minister and this government that the commercial Canadian fishing industry cannot change tariff and non-tariff barriers. Only the government has this power. It seems to me the whole weight and prestige of the Canadian government in its trade relations with the European economic community should be applied to remove these inequitable trade barriers. That is the clout needed by the Canadian fishing industry.
The minister should also strengthen the muscle of the Canadian fishing industry by using his ministerial strength against the frivolous countervail petitions aimed at Canadian exporters by American fishermens' groups. The minister should be more concerned about these matters, if not for the sake of the fishing industry, then at least for the threat that it poses for governments, shipyards and regional development policies.
Quite frankly, I deplore as loudly as possible the confrontation policies which presently appear to exist between the minister and the fishermen, between the minister and the industry and between the minister and the provincial counterparts in Atlantic Canada. In my opinion, the industry and the government, rather than confronting each other in an adversary posture, should be working together in an effort to mutually solve the problems which come under their collective powers.
One of the policies being followed by the minister of fisheries, which is seriously damaging marketing throughout the industry, is his continued policy of over-the-side sales. This spring, the ministers of our three maritime provinces expressed complete dissatisfaction with the lack of meaningful consultation by the federal government on the issue of indirect or over-the-side sales. They questioned, for example, whether the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has the legal author-

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
ity to allocate amounts of fish to foreign buyers without the approval of the provinces. They agreed there should be no direct sales involving guarantees unless there was prior consultation with the provinces, and that all conditions and guarantees offered to foreign buyers be offered to Canadian firms as well. This seems only fair, and it would place Canadian firms in the same competitive position as foreign companies getting over-the-side sale permits. The provinces also wanted any participating foreign vessel to be granted a permit from the respective provincial authority.
When endorsing these proposals for consideration by the federal government, I want no misunderstanding about my own position. I am not advocating provincial control over our fisheries. I have stated on previous occasions in this Elouse, and I repeat my stand tonight, that I firmly believe the deep sea fishery must remain under direct control of the federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I am sorry, I did not hear the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) who has just made a remark. He has the right to make a speech, I am sure and I know that whatever he said was complimentary to me because we are old friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: However, federal control does not prohibit provincial consultation and this is one area which can be investigated and expanded.
The present federal policy of authorizing over-the-side sales to communist countries with guarantees of extra squid, mackerel or herring to the ship, in the event its holds are not filled prior to leaving our 200-mile exclusive zone, may, on the surface, appear to be a bonanza to our fishermen. But in actual fact its over-all effect is extremely damaging to our industry. There is a growing concern today about the effect of over-the-side sales and their impact on Canadian efforts to develop markets for our fishing products, in particular, the so-called underutilized species, such as mackerel and squid. The problem seems to be that the Canadian industry keeps running into Canadian fish being sold by the Russians, or other east bloc countries, in our own markets. In fact, prospective sales have been turned down because the buyers anticipated Joint Trawlers Ltd., a Soviet company, would have an over-the-side contract in 1980 and would supply the mackerel cheaper. In fact, this has happened.
Recently I attended a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference in Zambia. While I was there I had an opportunity to meet with delegates from all over the Commonwealth, including some from West Africa. While speaking to a delegate from Nigeria, I learned that Nigeria used to provide a huge market for Canadian mackerel. We still sell some mackerel to that country, but we cannot develop a strong position in the market because of the competition provided by the Russians, selling Canadian mackerel which they buy through over-the-side sales in Canada. They pay more to the fishermen
than is possible by Canadian processors due to our unemployment insurance costs and high taxes. Because of their fixed overhead, they must have a certain price for their product. The Russians sell for less in order to get hard currency.
I also learned from another source that a Canadian sales team were shown Canadian mackerel in Egypt which had been bought from the Soviets. The price paid by the Egyptians was well below Canadian costs of production. Consequently, the Egyptian buyers advised that they would not buy any more mackerel from Canada unless we could meet the competition. The competition is provided by a communist country using slave labour which pays no taxes to Canada. It does not matter what prices our processors offer to the fishermen. For example, if it is ten cents a pound, the Soviets will offer 12, and if it is 12 cents a pound, they will offer 14. It is economically impossible for Canadian processors to meet that kind of competition.
The same applies to our sales of squid. Japan is the main market for this product, followed by southern Europe. Here again, Joint Trawlers Limited, a Soviet fishing company, undercuts Canadian exporters in Europe, supplying the market with Canadian squid. Japan has import quotas in place for squid, so every pound of quota supplied by the east bloc countries uses up import quotas that Canadians need for entry into the Japanese market. It is also my understanding that Canadian squid from east bloc sellers is underselling Canadian squid being offered by Canadian exporters to Japan, further damaging our position vis-a-vis the import quota.
These are only a few examples. There are many incidents like this which show that our over-the-side sales are hampering Canadian marketing and market development efforts. The effect on Canadian employment is, of course, obvious. There have been attempts to require the fishermen's groups to supply the shore plants' needs in any over-the-side arrangement, but these have not come to anything.
The Newfoundland union was permitted a foreign vessel in Black Tickle, Labrador this summer to buy cod fish-yes, cod fish-in spite of the fact there is a shore plant there owned by the province, and in spite of the fact that Fishery Products Limited, a Newfoundland company, was prepared to transfer any surplus catch to St. Anthony where the cod fish was needed. This deal was approved by the present fisheries minister on the basis that the local plant at least would be supplied, but this did not happen until the foreign vessel went aground and became a total loss.
I believe we have a responsibility to establish Canadians in a position where they can harvest, process and market the species I have mentioned without facing unfair competition from the communist bloc countries, countries that are not required to operate under the profit system but whose aim instead is to work for the overthrow of western countries and the free enterprise system. In fact, if present over-the-side sales policies continue, we must seriously ask ourselves what is the over-all aim of this government as it applies to the fisheries?
October 27, 1980

You have taken over the processing and marketing of freshwater fish in western Canada; you have taken over the processing and marketing of cod fish in Newfoundland through the Salt Fish Marketing Corporation. Are you now proposing to destroy the independent fresh fish industry in Atlantic Canada so that you will have the entire industry under your control?
If so, if this is your policy, you should come clean with the Canadian industry and the Canadian people presently involved in its development so that they can plan the best course for their own future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion, if for no other reason than to bring the House up to date on the latest developments concerning the fishing industry in my province and, in particular, in my riding.
It is a sad commentary on the knowledge that many Canadians have of their country that many of my colleagues in this House, on both sides, are surprised to learn that there is even a fishing industry on the prairies. Indeed, many members of this House thought I was pulling their legs when I talked of it. Therefore, I would like to inform the House tonight that a fishing industry on the prairies really does exist. It is a multimillion dollar industry, it employs thousands of people, it is the backbone on which many prairie communities were founded and it remains so in many of them to this day.
In the year 1978-79, net sales of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, which markets all fish caught on the prairies and in the Northwest Territories, amounted to over $34 million. I realize that this figure pales beside the coastal fishing industries, but it is nevertheless significant to the areas involved. As well, one must add the sale of rough fish, private sales, sales through co-ops and so on.
For the sake of this debate, let me bring my comments closer to home. In my riding of Selkirk-Interlake, there are over 1,000 fishermen doing roughly $10 million worth of business annually. Fishing has been very important to central Manitoba since the late 1870s when the Icelanders came to settle the shores of Lake Winnipeg. The existence of a large body of water with an abundance of fish meant a continuance of a known way of life to people who had for many years fished the north Atlantic. They did encounter one unknown obstacle, ice. The north Atlantic never froze over, but Lake Winnipeg did. However, with a little instruction from the local Indians, they were able to overcome that.
In a rather ironic turn of events, three years ago a fisherman from my home town of Gimli was hired to teach Newfoundlanders how to fish through the ice. My friends from Newfoundland, I must admit, are a touch embarrassed when I tease them about having to learn how to fish from a prairie boy.
For many communities in Selkirk-Interlake, Fishing was for many years the major source of income. Gimli, Riverton, Hecla Island, Hodgson, Grand Rapids come readily to mind.
Fishing Industry
In many communities to this day, fishing is still the main business. This is particularly true in many native communities. On Indian reserves at Easterville, Grand Rapids, Little Saskatchewan, Lake St. Martin, Jackhead, Dauphin River, Fisher River and others, unemployment jumps when the fishing season ends to as high as 95 per cent. 1 think these few comments indicate just how important the inland fishing industry is. In my opening comments, 1 said that many Canadians were totally unaware of its existence. Too often it seems that the government opposite is also unaware of its existence. In his comments this afternoon, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism spoke of his government's desire to make famous world wide such Canadian fish as salmon, cod, halibut and so on. I was a bit dismayed when he left out pickerel and whitefish, or the famous Lake Winnipeg smoked goldeye. However, we in the Interlake are long used to this kind of neglect from Liberal governments.
At this point in its history, the Manitoba fishing industry is facing some very serious threats. This is not the first time it has been threatened. In the late sixties, the business was floundering badly after years of abuse at the hands of large corporations, largely American owned, which treated their fishermen employees as little better than indentured serfs. However, the establishment of the Freshwater Fish Marketing Board in 1969 brought an end to this. After a somewhat rocky start, this board brought order to the industry and a much greater degree of prosperity.
A year later, Lake Winnipeg was closed because of possible mercury pollution. However, after considerable study, this proved to be wrong and the lake was reopened. The threats to the industry today are many. As my colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), mentioned in his opening comments, the Garrison diversion unit is one of them. My colleague from Skeena mentioned acid rain. This has not yet had any great effect on Lake Winnipeg, but it will inevitably take its toll.
The biggest problem has been government neglect. I would like to focus briefly on three or four areas and explain what I have in mind. One area is licensing. The system of licensing used on Manitoba lakes at the present time is very unfair to many fishermen. On some lakes there are three seasons- summer, fall and winter. Many fishermen are able to get only one licence, others two, very few fishermen have all three. It is very hard to make a living and support a family on only one licence, or two. Last winter, the Manitoba government produced a new scheme of licensing which would inevitably have meant the wiping out of many small fishermen and a return to the pre-1969 era of big interests controlling much of the lakes. During the winter months, they held meetings throughout the province to introduce or to explain this system. I suppose it is indicative of their lack of understanding that they were rather taken aback when their system met with universal opposition. They withdrew the program quickly.

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
I realize that licensing is administered by the provinces, but the federal government has the right to make some input into policy. However, it has not done so to date.
Another area of contention to Manitoba fishermen, and indeed to many inland fishermen, is the unemployment insurance regulations which are designed for the needs of coastal fishermen and which do not take into consideration the very different needs of inland fishermen. This is especially hard in many of the communities where there is no other employment in the off-season.
The third area is the vessel subsidy program. As many hon. members know, for many years the government provided 35 per cent of the cost of new fishing boats for fishermen. This was a very good program and it was helpful, especially to natives and to young fishermen trying to get into the business. Last summer the government of the day withdrew this program. This caused much consternation to inland fishermen and it was especially hard on natives and on those people who have only one or two licences and who really cannot afford to buy new equipment. It was also hard on the boatworks. I know of two boatworks in the town of Winnipegosis, which is in the neighbouring riding to mine, which were forced to shut down. Two boatworks in the town of Gimli have had to lay off their employees. Last fall the program was reinstated on a limited basis, but at present we do not really know whether it will continue or where it is going to go, and this is very unsettling for many fishermen in Manitoba.
The single biggest threat is one which I have already mentioned, that is, the Garrison diversion unit. Let me explain briefly what the Garrison diversion is. It is an irrigation scheme in the state of North Dakota. It is a motherhood issue, something that has been dreamed of by North Dakotans for over 100 years now. The idea is to use some of the water from the Missouri River system to irrigate the dry lands of north and central North Dakota. The benefits of this system at present are rather questionable. In order to irrigate 250,000 acres of land, 220,000 acres of land will be taken out of production. The cost benefit factor is definitely negative. However, this is not of concern to Manitobans; it is an internal North Dakotan problem. What is of concern to us is that the Garrison diversion unit as defined will link up the Missouri River water basin with the Hudson Bay water basin and as a result of this link-up through-leaching chemicals will be introduced into the Red River-Hudson Bay system, as well as parasites and strange fish.
A year ago, on the first chance I had to speak to the House, other than in the question period, I introduced to the House two of these strange fish, the rainbow smelt and the gizzard shad. Tonight I would like to add a third, the Utah chub. All three of these fish are rapid breeders, very adaptable to new environments, and would seriously threaten existing fish stocks.
Let me read from a technical report issued by the Fisheries & Marine Service in February, 1979. It is entitled "Potential Effects of Exotic Fishes on Manitoba: An Impact Assessment
of the Garrison Diversion Unit." With regard to the rainbow smelt, the report concludes:
-we believe that rainbow smelt will be successfully introduced and established in Manitoba waters . . . We believe that smelt, when introduced to Manitoba, will cause the collapse of lake herring populations in Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis and will have a major negative impact on the lake whitefish fishery in the north basins of Lakes Winnipeg and Manitoba. Smelt will also have negative impacts on walleye fisheries in certain locales of Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis. Declines in the abundance of higher-valued species will result in decrease in fishermen's incomes such as occurred in Lake Erie during the late 1950s.
With regard to the gizzard shad it says:
-we believe that gizzard shad will be introduced and can be established in Lakes Winnipeg, Manitoba and Winnipegosis. There are suitable environmental and habitat conditions, food supplies and spawning areas for establishment of gizzard shad populations in these waters.. . Magnitude of impact may range from minimal impact to the worst possible impact of total collapse of walleye and sauger populations in these lakes.
With regard to our new friend, the Utah chub, they say:
In summary, Utah chub have a high reproduction potential, a potential for population irruptions and likely can establish in Manitoba waters . . . Furthermore, if in Manitoba waters, Utah chub will have a negative impact on indigenous fishes and may become a nuisance to anglers and commercial fishermen (through sheer volume of catch in the nets). We expect Utah chub will compete with whitefish and walleye for food and likely displace, to a major extent, existing forage species, particularly minnows . . . Therefore, we consider this fish to represent the same potential for major impact as rainbow smelt or gizzard shad.
Now I should like to quote some figures. The report gives a table of the percentage reductions in population size. They use three figures, the lowest, the most likely, and the maximum. I will only use the most likely figures. In the Lake Winnipeg north basin, the effect on the lake whitefish will be a 50 per cent reduction; on lake herring it will be 75 per cent; and on walleye and sauger 50 per cent. In the south basin of Lake Winnipeg, the effect on the lake whitefish will be a 5 per cent reduction; on the lake herring, a 5 per cent reduction; and on walleye and sauger, a 50 per cent reduction. In Lake Manitoba, the effect on the lake whitefish will be a 30 per cent reduction; on the lake herring it will be 75 per cent; and on walleye and sauger, 75 per cent.
The end result of this potential hazard to Manitoba fisheries will be nothing short of disastrous. Let me tell you how seriously people in Manitoba are taking this. I am sure the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would not like to hear this comment, but there are people in my riding who consider the resolution of the Garrison issue to be of greater concern to this country, or at least to Manitoba, than the present constitutional issue. There can be no iFs or but's on this issue. No link-up of the Missouri River drainage basin and the Hudson Bay drainage basin can be allowed. It is as simple as that. The actions of governments in Winnipeg and Ottawa have been far less than reassuring. The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is quite clear. In article 4 it says:
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other.
Clearly the Garrison diversion unit will break that treaty. We get statements from the state department and the executive branch that the Boundary Waters Treaty will be adhered
October 27, 1980

to, but construction crews in North Dakota continue to dig canals. Just last month a tender call was issued for the construction of the New Rockford canal which runs in the direction south of Jamestown. The New Rockford canal is completely useless unless the Lonetree reservoir is completed. If and when the Lonetree reservoir is completed, the link-up between the Missouri and the Hudson Bay systems will be in effect and the Manitoba fishing industry will go down the drain. Meanwhile, our governments rely on diplomatic niceties. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Guigan) knows well of my concerns on this issue. Indeed, I believe he is sympathetic and has been supportive of me and of some of the actions I have taken to oppose the Garrison project. Our ambassador in Washington and his staff have done an exceptional job within the confines of their role to express to the U.S. state department and to U.S. politicians our concerns on this matter. But, damn it, it is just not good enough. I have a premonition of the day when the first gizzard shad swims up the Red River.
On that day I see the United States state department reaffirming its position not to violate the boundary waters treaty and our government sitting there still believing the Americans. But it will be too late then.
As the motion put forward today by my hon. friend indicates, this Liberal government is indeed betraying the interests of Canadian fishermen not only on our coasts, as my colleagues earlier have said, but also on our fresh water lakes. If this betrayal does not end soon, members of this government opposite will be as welcome in Manitoba fishing communities as our friend the gizzard shad.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened carefully to the comments of my good friend, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). He did a good job during the few months that he was president of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, and I believe that we had very interesting proceedings during his term in office. 1 would like to congratulate him on the way that he managed and administered this committee during the few months of the Progressive Conservative administration.
Mr. Speaker, in reading once again the wording of the motion that we have been asked to debate today, it seems to me more and more obvious that our friends opposite have not only missed the target, but more important, that they have misdirected their shot by believing that it would be easy to show the failure of this government in the administration of fisheries and oceans, and especially oceans. If there is one area where the Government of Canada is making its presence felt, achieving remarkable results and making the rest of the world aware of the importance it places on the fishing industry, it is certainly that of ocean management. And if there is one person among us who illustrates the interest shown by the Government of Canada in this area, it is certainly the present Minister of
Fishing Industry
Fisheries and Oceans, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc).
Mr. Speaker, we must thank God that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the Progressive Conservative administration between May, 1979, and February, 1980, did not keep his portfolio any longer. Everyone recalls what happened when the large trawlers entered the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Ail the in-shore fishermen associations of Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and even Nova Scotia appeared before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry to express their dissatisfaction with this policy of the then minister.
Mr. Speaker, it is not a secret that our country is bordered by three oceans. We have the longest shoreline in the world. The sea which surrounds us and over which we extended our country's jurisdiction for fisheries to 200 nautical miles from our shores in January, 1977, for most people-and also, no doubt, for our friends on the other side-has resources, secrets and mysteries still unknown to us. To quote the words of another great parliamentarian, Sir Winston Churchill, when he was describing the Soviet Union: The sea, a great unknown, a mystery within an enigma-
Mr. Speaker, when it created the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in 1977, the government took on an ambitious task. Not only did it take over the responsibility for managing fisheries, it also took on the responsibility for managing the oceans over which it had already affirmed its jurisdiction. Of course there were relationships between ocean sciences and fisheries, but there was much more than that. There was also the challenge of the eighties, a challenge which extends to the responsibilities of the coastal states for the development of off-shore resources as well as the systematic and responsible development of renewable resources. It was, as it can be easily seen, a considerable task and an exceptional challenge.
As we say, the absent are always in the wrong. And I know today that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is not among us. He had some other commitments. Today he is on the Pacific coast, the bearer of good news to those who are in charge of fisheries in British Columbia. For once, we will prove the proverb wrong. It is not by chance that the minister was entrusted with the portfolio of the Fisheries and Oceans after our return to power in February last.
Let us recall a few facts which are all to his credit. The minister who comes from the maritimes had assumed the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans when he was minister of the environment. It was not long, however, before he was concerned exclusively with fisheries and oceans. The fisheries file at the time was faced with enormous difficulties. My hon. friends opposite will doubtless remember how we dealt with this painful situation in 1974. The industry was coming out of a period of plenty which had lasted several years. Suddenly, it realized that the halieutic resources were not inexhaustible, that the natural environment was in the grip of serious pollution problems, that the fishing areas could be the object of

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
stubborn dealings between the users, in short, that all was not well in the best of all possible worlds, and that it had better get hold of the situation, impose regulations, and especially obtain from all interested parties the assurance to carry out their activities in a responsible manner, in anticipation of the future.
This is the assignment which the minister took on with determination and success. Our hon. friends cannot say anything to the contrary. The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent got back his portfolio after a short break. There are many people from the industry and the users who have expressed their satisfaction. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the captain was taking back the helm of the ship he himself had built and that he knew well how to sail through the tormented seas he knew so well. Thanks to the work of his officials, the administrators and the scientists of his department, the minister has been able to demonstrate with conviction that this industry that some considered of little importance had its place in our country. Through reasonable management practices and through responsible development and expansion programs based on precise data, he proved that this industry was capable of becoming prosperous.
The first to acknowledge this fact are the fishermen themselves, Mr. Speaker, coming from nowhere or just about, they again found themselves lords and masters of the seas and the oceans. Furthermore it is with a renewed pride that they say that they are fishermen and that they have undertaken without cease to roam a vast expense they had been given the keys, namely the oceans and the new economic zone of 200 nautical miles.
Now, what are the challenges ahead in the eighties? In fact, Mr. Speaker, the fishing industry had to undergo a change not only to maintain its present position but also to develop at the same rate as its competitors to be able to respond to new needs.
Fishing has evolved from a simple family business to a sophisticated industry requiring up-to-date equipment and efficient processing methods. It has recently been able to meet new market demands for non-traditional species of fish, which meant the acquisition of new production techniques.
What is the responsibility of the present Canadian administration? When dealing with ocean management, it is addressing a threefold task:
(a)	First, under present conditions, dealing with the management of underwater oil operations.
(b)	Second: Preserving a very precarious balance by waging a fight against sea pollution.
(c)	Last but not least, managing Canadian fisheries within the 200-mile limit.
To make matters clear, I will recall the criteria by which management performance is rated. Mr. Speaker, I was very pleased, a moment ago, on hearing my good friend, the hon.
member for South Shore, state that the administration of fisheries in the Atlantic ocean, within a 200-mile zone, must be the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian government and 1 told the hon. member to go and see his good Progressive Conservative friends in Newfoundland and impress upon them, as well as on the hon. Premier Peckford, that the management of Atlantic fisheries must remain under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Canadian government. I laud my good friend, the hon. member for South Shore, for his statement. For once, I am in agreement with him and perhaps with you also, my good friend, the hon. member for British Columbia; and we see here the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) who supported this motion admit that he agrees with this policy of the Canadian government and especially with that of the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the field of jurisdiction of the Canadian government, the responsibility-and I am not saying that it should be shared but at least the main responsibility- for the management of the fisheries in the Atlantic area should be maintained.
There will be the cumulative amount of statistics compiled in another area. Furthermore, there will be all the effort of co-ordination of an efficient management system; this combined effort with regard to research in every discipline is directed to the integration of all those efforts to the benefit of the people who are expecting results, the individuals themselves.
That we should be faced with problems of production is easy to conceive; however, there is more. There are problems of transportation, equipment, training of manpower and also this nuisance of our time, problems of pollution. These problems can come up in many ways: a breakage somewhere and we are faced with raw materials being spread in the natural environment. When we reach the stage of processing, or usage we are faced with masses of deleterious gases released in the air. I am thinking of acid rain. I am just giving you an outline, of course, but I want to call your attention to that aspect of the problem which did not escape the Canadian government and which is a source of concern especially for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the monitoring of the environment. This has been translated into a series of programs and specialized activities following the adoption by the Canadian Parliament of legislation concerning the protection of the environment which for the time being meet the needs which have been recognized.
In November, 1978, Canada and the United States signed an agreement on water quality in the Great Lakes. This agreement is aimed at eliminating almost totally all dumpings of toxic substances into the Great Lakes and setting a new limit on the permissible quantity of phosphorus for each lake; joint municipal and industrial programs on dumping of polluting products into the lakes are to become operational according to a very tight schedule. During 1979-80 the federal atmospheric environment service completed a study on sulphur contents in the air over a three million square kilometres area
October 27, 1980

in eastern Canada, including the maritime provinces and a major portion of Quebec and Ontario. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans was actively involved in programs whose findings have revealed a high frequency of acid rains over all that wide territory.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am proud to be a member of the subcommittee on fisheries and forestry which is now studying the effects of acid rains in Canada. I will now comment briefly on fisheries management in Canada's 200-mile zone. We often hear critics of the Canadian government and especially of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans declare without any misgivings that the government has done nothing for the management of fisheries and oceans in the 200-mile zone.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, the staff has increased considerably at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 1976 and national outlays earmarked for scientific research on fisheries totalled some $112 million annually. In conclusion I should say that the Canadian government has done a lot for oceans and for the administration of fisheries in Canada. It is certainly not a failure as the opposition claims, but indeed this political party, this government has done its best for the management of fisheries and oceans and the minister and member for Westmorland-Kent deserves full marks for that.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) for placing this motion on the order paper for debate today, because it gives us an opportunity which is all too seldom afforded to bring to the fore some of the problems in the east and west coast fisheries.
In thanking him I would not say I agree entirely with every single word he has put into his motion. In fact, I take exception to the word "betraying" which appears in the first paragraph because I think it is a very strong word. The negotiators I know in the international field, particularly those negotiating with the United States, are not the kind who betray. They may not properly take certain things into account; perhaps that is a better way of putting it. I would say the motion should read as follows:
That this House condemns the government for its failure to support the Canadian fishing industry, as demonstrated (a) by its failure to take into account all the interests of Canadian fishermen in its international fisheries negotiations with the United States-
Now the very first one of these I would tie in with section (d) of this motion because the government has demonstrated all too obviously a lack of action to enforce existing legislation and its claim to the 200-mile limit. There has been altogether too little effort made by this government to live up to and enforce the extra maritime territory which was acquired by the decision to extend the fisheries zone out to the 200-mile limit. Therefore I think we do have a way of uniting sections (a) and
Fishing Industry
(d)	of this particular resolution, and if possible I may be able to get at one of the others.
One of the things I do wish to speak about this evening is the manner in which international agreements between Canada and the United States are concluded and what happens to them once they are concluded. We have heard from the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) the problems related to the fishing agreement on the east coast. I was not at that special meeting in Washington when a group of members from both sides of the House, and from both Houses, went to Washington to explain to the United States Congress the Canadian position on the ratification procedure related to that particular agreement. However, I was present when the matter was first initiated in San Diego during the visit of the Canada-U.S. parliamentary group. At that meeting the member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) suggested that rather than take up all the time of the meetings in San Diego-there were other topics we were discussing at that time-it might be desirable for a special group to go to Washington. It did that in July.
We read this morning in a press release of recommendations made to the two governments by negotiators on the west coast which it is expected will be adopted as a treaty in due course. There are four, five or six elements in this agreement which I think are worth recording here. One is the recommendation which deals with the problem of interception, that is, which country may catch which fish. Conservation of all five species of Pacific salmon was taken into account during negotiations and recommendations were agreed upon as to who should be able to catch whose fish. Catches of salmon spawned in one country but caught in another should be limited. According to this press release it is generally agreed-as it has been agreed for years-that the division should be equal, although at the present time Canadians take about two million U.S. salmon each year while Americans take five million Canadian-bred salmon. That inequity is one of the problems which the negotiators have been attempting to deal with, and it is one worth noting.
Another matter which was included in the recommendations dealt with the situation which arises when one country wants to allow more salmon to return upstream so as to encourage a greater stock production. In that case there would be a proportionate decrease in the take on the American side resulting in the Americans proportionately reducing their take. Accordingly, there would be a smaller catch of American-bred salmon. Then there is the question of control over the Fraser River, and, finally, the recommendation that Canada should receive credit for fish spawned in northern British Columbia and Yukon rivers but caught in U.S. nets. That is a very special problem because of the panhandle and because of the flow of the rivers. The salmon enter the Yukon River, in American estuaries, swim up the Yukon and eventually breed in Canadian territory. At another Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group meeting we did see some of the escapement going through the fish ladders up in Whitehorse.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the argument of the hon. member who just had the floor. Without detracting in any way from his very well presented thesis, I would like to say that the press reports in the last day or two that a west coast salmon treaty is just about ready for signing are entirely erroneous. All that has been discussed so far is what to talk about in the real negotiations.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my thanks to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) for bringing this subject before the House at this time.


Walter David Baker: It was a wonderful surprise.
October 27, 1980


James Douglas Manly: We on the west coast face a real crisis and it is important that we take the time to discuss the matter. My colleague from Nanaimo-Alberni has put forward a comprehensive criticism of the government's failure to support Canada's fishing industry. Among other things, he mentioned its failure to stand up to the United States in negotiating our fishing treaty and its failure to refuse to allow them to push us on the boundary issue.
The hon. member pointed out that the continuing high interest rate policy of this government is an added burden on fishermen who are already facing serious problems of high payments on their boats. He pointed out the government's failure to limit the amount of gear that is going into the water, with the result we continue to have more and more gear chasing fewer fish. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni pointed out the government's failure to develop our research capability at the very time we face growing management difficulties with the fishing industry. Finally, he pointed to the serious neglect of fish habitat.
It is interesting to hear what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) had to say in an interview while in British Columbia last spring. The newspaper report I have here quotes him as saying:
There are some problems on the west coast but in the past it has shown it can take the knocks.
The fishing industry on the west coast is taking very serious knocks and unless the minister and the department get to work it will receive a knock-out blow from which it will never recover. Along with other members of my party who are vitally concerned about the future of this resource and the industry in British Columbia, I plead with the minister and his department to take some positive action that will alleviate the situation.
Within the broad outlines of the criticism established by my colleague from Nanaimo-Alberni, I would, first of all, like to make some remarks of particular interest to my constituency, Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. Second, I would like to point to some of the problems which the native Indian people of British Columbia face with regard to fishing. Like fishermen from all along the British Columbia coast, many of those in Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands have experienced a disastrous year. Depleted stocks, low catch prices, rising costs and high interest rates have all worked together to keep fishermen from breaking even, let alone making a profit or even making their wages.
Ten years ago the salmon catch in British Columbia was 280 million pounds. Last year it was half that at 140 million pounds. This year I understand we will be very lucky if we break 100 million pounds. Obviously, something very serious is wrong with the way in which the department has managed the resource. The people who are paying for this mismanagement are the people who have been led to invest money in boats and in gear with the hope of making their livelihood from fishing. They are caught in a vicious cycle of boom and bust.
I submit that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans must manage the resource much better and that we should not be
Fishing Industry
subject at the mercy of periodic slumps. There is need at the present time for immediate help so that fishermen do not lose everything for which they have worked over the past few years. Right now their livelihoods are in jeopardy as they try to make the high interest payments on their investments in boats and gear. Unless action is taken to protect these fishermen, this industry will become controlled more than ever by large corporations, and as anyone who has looked at the industry knows, this has been continuing trend over the last 50 years, more and more power being gathered into the hands of fewer and fewer corporations.
Along with my concern for fishermen who are making high payments on their boats, I would like to make a plea for the shore workers. I would request that the government consider bringing in some kind of special legislation to lower to eight the number of weeks that shore workers must work in order to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits. It is important that these people, on whom the industry depends, on whom our economy depends, should not have to bear the entire brunt of the boom and bust cycle which is a result of the government's failure to act. They should not have to assume the entire burden. I think it would be right and fitting if the government shared that burden.
When I look around my constituency, Mr. Speaker, I become greatly concerned at the government's failure to protect the fish habitat. I welcomed the assurance given the other night by officials of the department that it would continue to protect the fish habitat in the Cowichan estuary regardless of what the provincial task force on the Cowichan estuary will say when it finally reports. We have been waiting for that report for more than two years.
There seems to be a determination on the part of some forces in British Columbia to further industrialize the estuaries. Of course, these are easy places in which to put industry but industry in such sensitive areas would destroy the very basis of our fishing industry and the basis of our present and future prosperity. The federal department should have the gumption to oppose this kind of industrialization which can only lead to the degradation and destruction of the fish habitat. There was federal representation on the task force. We are waiting for the results of its investigation to see whether the department is willing to protect the fish habitat or whether it is going to bow before the demands of those who want to industrialize the estuaries and who have no concern for the habitat of fish. People come to me to talk about the Fraser River and how important it is to the economy of British Columbia-indeed, to the economy of Canada. We regret the failure of this government to protect the Fraser River and keep it from turning into the world's largest sewer.
While the Fraser River is important-and I do not want to underestimate its importance-I want to emphasize that there are numerous smaller rivers and streams which, combined, have a very great fish producing capacity. In my constituency the government has been just as neglectful of these small areas

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
as it has been of the Fraser River. For example, the Cowichan River is in serious trouble at the present time and this is a river that has a fairly major impact on our fisheries. The study done for the Cowichan estuary task force two years ago pointed out that this river is important to Indian food fishing, to commercial fishing and also to sports fishing. I walked the banks of that river with an old-time fisherman last spring and saw how some of the side channels have been allowed to silt over and how the debris has accumulated. These side channels need to be cleared so that the fish can spawn there again. I was shown some of the log jams and the destruction they cause. As the water comes down river, it hits the log jams, and forces its way into other channels and develops swift currents that eat away more and more of the bank. As a result there is less space in which the salmon can spawn. What used to be one of the best salmon rivers in British Columbia is being destroyed by neglect. What we need is some kind of joint federal-provincial arrangement to take care of this river and others like it.
I was disappointed to learn that of the $28.5 million budgeted for the salmonid enhancement program in 1980, only $1 million was put aside for natural enhancement. Too much of the emphasis in the salmonid enhancement program is laid on big engineering projects. When the program was introduced three or four years ago, departmental officials held hearings in small and large communities throughout British Columbia to find out what the people thought was the most necessary aspect of it. The message in one community after another, was that emphasis should be placed on natural methods of enhancement and on stream clearing. Instead, the department has chosen to establish the big engineering projects. Of that $28.5 million allocated to the salmonid enhancement program, only $125,000 is available for public participation projects and small stream work.
In my constituency, the Cowichan Indian band has a salmonid enhancement projet but it is hard pressed to find the funds to carry out the work. In this House we have spoken about the problem of Indian unemployment. This is a program which could help the salmon industry and put people to work at the same time but the funds do not seem to be available. The government has suggested that the band could apply to the Canadian Community Development Project for funds.
Of course, the government knows full well that the money allocated for these projects in all of western Canada, is but a drop in the bucket and does not begin to meet any of the real needs-either of stream clearance, the hatchery project, nor to speak of the need for employment. It is just a cynical public relations move.
1 am concerned about the government's failure to protect the fish habitat from spraying by chemicals about which we do not have sufficient evidence, such as the krenite spraying that took place in British Columbia during last summer.
My next area of concern relates to Indian fisheries, Mr. Speaker. I welcomed the announcement made a week ago that $4.2 million would be made available to Indian fishermen in special aid. I think this recognizes an important crisis. Unless help is given now, even more Indian fishermen will be squeezed
out of business. Since 1969 when the Davis Licence Limitation Plan was introduced, the Indian people have been squeezed out of the industry. For example, one group of Indian people on the west coast of Vancouver Island found that between 1973 and 1976, the number of Indian-operated trollers declined by 54 per cent. These figures indicate very dramatically how the Indian people are being squeezed out.
We should recognize that a crisis exists at the present time and, we should also recognize that the Indian people face a continuing crisis. We know that 59 per cent of the Indian population is under age 25 yet there is no program to provide jobs for these people, and they are not able to enter the fishing industry. Traditionally, the Indian people on the west coast have been referred to as the salmon people-people who depended on the ocean and on the annual runs of salmon even before there was a commercial industry there.
This has been their culture and life. They are being squeezed out of it. It is important we recognize the significance of this crisis and make money available to help them. We need money for the economic development of the fishing industry on the coast. I thought the Indian fishermen's assistance program was helpful, but there have been severe criticisms of it. Some of the Indian people have asked whether it was right that one small group of people should be allowed to develop themselves while others were being squeezed out of the program. More of the Indian organizations are asking for programs to help the whole Indian community to develop Indian community wellbeing rather than simply to develop individual well-being. We need training programs for our Indian people, so they can become involved in more of the complex areas of the fishing industry.
Perhaps we should also be looking at a very old method of catching fish by the use of fish traps which the Indian people used. I realize it is heresy to talk about this in our time because we are so committed to the idea of free enterprise in the fishing industry, to the idea of using more and more gear and burning up more and more oil chasing after fish. However, maybe there is a possibility that the old method of establishing fish traps at the mouth of a river, through which mature fish come would eliminate the trouble of catching all the small fish which must be thrown away. Then we would be able to manage individual streams and develop the resource for the entire community. We would be able to take some kind of rational approach to the fishing industry. Perhaps in five or ten years more people might realize that fish traps are a more sensible approach than the present gear-intensified craziness which is presently destroying our resource and making it more difficult for people to make a living from it.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased to speak to this motion because the fishery is the lifeblood of my province and it is vital to many of my constituents in Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.
October 27, 1980

What we have before us is a motion which condemns the Government of Canada for its failure to support Canada's fishery-condemns us to where, I do not know; nevertheless it condemns the Government of Canada. The motion goes on to accuse the Government of Canada of betrayal, or of following a course of anarchy in its fisheries policy; also it complains of a lack of change in policy and finally it accuses the government of failure to enforce those policies already described as a betrayal to fishermen in the first place. I would suggest the motion in itself is a contradiction in its terms.
Let me suggest to the hon. member in the New Democratic Party who put forward this motion that I respect his right to present it. 1 respect his right to raise his concerns about Canada's fishery. In fact, I agree, with many of his concerns and I am sure the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) would agree also. I am concerned about large corporations getting control of a bigger chunk of the fishery. I am concerned about companies that would like to monopolize the fishery at the expense of our fishermen. I am concerned too about the threat which industry is posing to Canada's fishery every day.
In my own province, the most stringent environmental guidelines will have to be applied to protect our fishery from offshore oil and gas development. However, I would respectfully submit to my colleague opposite that to offer constructive advice, in other words, to move a motion for the consideration of this House which might bring about important change, would be more productive and positive than any negative motion.
It is my intention to clarify some of the matters raised in this House today by opposition members as they relate to the fishing industry on the west coast of Canada and in my own area on the east coast.
First, dealing with the west coast of Canada, I shall start with a few statistics. Traditionally, the west coast fishing industry represents approximately 35 per cent of the total revenue generated by the fishing industry right across Canada. It is responsible for the direct employment of roughly 22,000 people. The five main species of Pacific salmon are sockeye, chum, pink, chinook and cohoe and they are, of course, the backbone of the fishing industry off the coast of British Columbia. As such they represent a bountiful renewable resource.
Over the years, salmon have provided a good living for many west coast fishermen. Annual income of $50,000 to $70,000 have not been uncommon in recent seasons. If honourable members have any doubts about the state of prosperity of the west coast fishing industry, they have only to cast their eyes over fishing fleets in such places as Steveston or Prince Rupert and contemplate the investment of tens of millions of dollars tied up in boats and gear, much of it the latest and most advanced technology on the market.
Unfortunately, and it is unfortunate, the situation in 1980 is not as buoyant as it has been in previous years. My information is that despite some unexpectedly high chum catches in recent weeks, salmon landings generally in B.C., up to the end
Fishing Industry
of September, were running 22 per cent below those for the corresponding period in 1979. Extrapolating that trend to the year end indicates that 1980 salmon landings will range between 52 per cent and 91 per cent of the ten-year average, depending on the species, with the over-all total at about 77 per cent of the ten-year average. That is not good news. Predictions are that the total landed value of this year's salmon catch will amount to approximately $103 million. This is a 36 per cent drop from the 1979 value of $160.5 million and it is much below the four-year average of $140 million in the period 1976 through 1979. The fact that salmon prices are from 10 per cent to 20 per cent lower than last year is a contributing factor to the over-all decrease in landed value. I might point out that catches of salmon fishermen in the northern part of the province were actually higher than in 1979, both in the troll and the net fisheries. The fishermen who are doing poorly this year are mainly those fishing off the southern part of British Columbia, particularly the trollers.
Making this a worse-than-usual year for the industry in B.C. was a strike earlier this year. Indeed, there was a strike in my province, which will no doubt reflect itself in the figures at the end of the year. Because of the strike by the herring fishermen in British Columbia, most of them did not participate in the previously lucrative roe herring fishery this year.
What will the impact of this downturn be on the average west coast fisherman? Certainly there will be a decrease in the net incomes of many fishermen in 1980. In some cases, this could lead to repossession of vessels-God forbid-where the owners are caught in a credit squeeze. However, because of the healthy earnings of past seasons, there is every expectation that most west coast fishermen will be able to cope with the situation and get through until next season with a little belt tightening.
I have been assured that officials of the department are continuing to closely monitor the impacts of current economic conditions on Pacific fisheries in order to assess whether special assistance may be necessary.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could the hon. member who is speaking answer a short question at this time?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I will accept the hon. member's question when I am finished.
Although the fisheries economic picture on the west coast this year is not as bright as one might have wished, it does forcefully point up the unpredictability which characterizes the fisheries harvest and the extreme complexity of managing the fisheries resource. And nowhere is this task more complex than in the salmon fishery on the west coast.
As an example of this complexity, one might take the Fraser River system which has more than 40 different stocks of chinook salmon, whose movements once they leave the river are still not fully understood. Each stock is unique with its own set of characteristics which allow it to migrate the required

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
distances, to develop in temperatures indigenous to its spawning area and generally to survive in the environment of its home river. For example, McGregor River chinook travel nearly 500 miles to their spawning grounds, compared with Capilano stocks which only swim about four miles upriver. Egg incubation periods differ from stock to stock and so do the rearing times of young fish.
The Fraser is probably one of the most complicated systems that fisheries management personnel must cope with. This is due to the fact that the commercial fleet is concentrated in the areas through which the Fraser stocks must pass, coupled with the long and perilous journey up the main stem of the river which the fish must make to reach their spawning grounds. The intense fishing pressure, the natural hazards facing the salmon's survival and encroachment on the habitat of the salmon as a result of various industrial activities and competing resource uses, all add to the problems of fisheries management. Not only are a few stocks declining in the face of this onslaught, but some are in danger of extinction.
Flowever, our fisheries managers are not ready or willing to throw in the towel in their fight to save and hopefully, enhance, the Fraser chinook stocks. For them and for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the struggle to save the salmon takes on aspects of a religious crusade. They know what they are trying to do is worth while and that the results of their labours will benefit not only the present generation, but generations yet unborn.
A key element in this fight is a massive tagging program which over the next few years is hoped will generate the information that fisheries biologists need to effectively manage the commercial, sport and native food fisheries, and to plan future enhancement programs.
Fast year nearly 600,000 three-month-old chinook fry from British Columbia rivers and hatcheries, had a fin clipped off and a coded wire identification tag inserted in the nose cartilage. When sport fishermen catch one of these fin clipped fish, they are asked to turn the heads into depots across the province. The commercial catch is sampled for marks in the processing plants. The nose tags are removed and the number codes read and recorded. In this way it is possible to identify the date and origin of the fish and gain information on where, when and how the fish was caught, thereby assisting biologists in charting the migration patterns of the different stocks of salmon of British Columbia.
The statistics from tagging will also allow fishery managers to pinpoint more accurately the times and places when a Fishery should be closed down in order to allow stocks to escape the fishermen's nets or hooks and return to the river to produce the next generation.
However, establishing a fishing plan which will ensure adequate escapements to each river is made even more difficult when stocks from a variety of rivers are mixed together in the same fishery. For example, if a stock from a highly productive river and stock from a river that is not as productive are fished together, too large a percentage of the less productive stock may be caught, thereby furthering the decline of that stock.
A similar problem arises when stocks from an artificial enhancement facility and "wild" or natural, stocks are fished together. This is because enhancement facilities obtain much higher survival rates than occur in the wild. With cohoe salmon stocks, for example, survival rates of 80 per cent from the egg to smolt stage-that is when they first venture into the ocean-are common in hatcheries. By contrast only about 11 per cent or 12 per cent of the cohoe which incubate and rear in the stream in totally natural conditions will survive to the smolt stage. Thus if natural and enhanced stocks are fished together, the fishery manager must choose between the harvesting of fewer fish from the enhancement facility than necessary, or the harvesting of too many wild fish.
I must apologize to hon. members if I have become too technical in attempting to explain what the fishery manager is up against when involved with the west coast salmon fishery. My sole intention is to provide a better insight into the complexities of the matter. And at that, 1 must admit that I have only just scratched the surface.
The opposition motion seeks to condemn the government for alleged lack of action to devise and implement revised policies to regulate the industry or to enforce existing legislation protecting the fisheries. Certainly as far as the west coast of Canada is concerned, there is little to substantiate such allegations.
Earlier I made brief mention of the problems of safeguarding the habitats where salmon breed and grow from degradation or complete destruction as a result of various industrial activities such as logging, construction of hydroelectric dams, dredging, dumping of wastes, mining operations and so on.
Obviously it makes little sense for the federal government to invest millions of dollars in salmon enchancement schemes to increase the supply of salmon if there is no control over assaults on the basic habitats of the stocks-the cradle of the runs, as it were. For this reason the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has placed a high priority on its habitat management activities, and nowhere more so than on the west coast.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: What's his name?


Brian Vincent Tobin: For the hon. lady's information, it is the member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. I am very much interested in the west coast fishery. I wish the hon. lady were as well.
At this point, it might be of value if I said a few words about the salmonid enchancement program, so important to the people of B.C., particularly fishermen. This ambitious and imaginative program was launched in 1977 by the federal government in co-operation with the government of British Columbia and is designed to double the annual catch of Pacific salmon in the space of 20 years or so, that is, add about 25 million salmon to the current catch. The federal government investment in the initial seven-year phase has been set at approximately $150 million. It is the government's intention to continue this funding, based on the success of the initial phase, to bring about the required objectives.
October 27, 1980

In economic terms, the objective of the salmonid enchancement program is to increase the landed value of the salmon harvest from the current yearly average of $160 million to $400 million, in 1980 dollars, by the year 2000. This will be achieved by allocating the increased production to its best use and by undertaking cost-effective programs to increase the quality of fish products.
A further objective would be to double direct sport fishing benefits from $50 million to $100 million by the year 2000, as well as continuing to meet the needs of the traditional Indian subsistence fishery.
I realize there are others who would like to say a few words on this motion. I simply want to add as a Newfoundlander and one who is very concerned about Canada's fishery, that I share many of the concerns raised here today, in particular with regard to the environment, on the question of whether to allow industry to grab a bigger chunk and the problem of preventing monopolies from forming.
I repeat, however, that a motion which merely condemns but offers no positive and constructive advice is not good enough. I would suggest that my colleague in the New Democratic Party come back with another motion which makes some concrete suggestions. I would then support his motion.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a serious question to the hon. member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. Almost all of his speech dealt with the west coast salmon fishery. I would like to ask him whether his speech was prepared for him by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans or whether he prepared it himself.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am quite pleased to tell the hon. member opposite that I have had a great deal of help in preparing this speech. In fact, my good colleague and friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Henderson), provided me with a great deal of research material, and I certainly appreciate it. I am not one of those who would dare venture to rise in the House of Commons without at least having had the opportunity of asking for advice and information which could be useful to me in participating in the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for this opportunity to make some remarks in connection with the motion condemning the government for its neglect of the fishing industry. It provides me with an opportunity to make some general remarks about the great importance of the east coast fishery to Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces.
First, I should make it clear that in my constituency of Halifax West, less than 5 per cent of our work force is employed in the fisheries industry. Nonetheless, it is a matter of great importance to all of us because in the fishing industry in Nova Scotia we see part of our hope for the future. That industry, along with developments in the field of energy and
Fishing Industry
marine transportation, will bring us, we hope, to a new era in the 1980s.
Let me begin a discussion of the fishing industry in Nova Scotia by listing some facts which underline the magnitude as well as the importance of our industry to the whole of Canada. We rank fifteenth worldwide but first in export sales of fish. There are over 100,000 people directly employed in fishing, and this accounts for $1.3 billion in export sales. That compares favourably with export wheat sales which amount to approximately $2.2 billion. Canadian fish production has an estimated worth of $1.6 billion, and at least $1 billion of this is earned on the east coast where most of the production is centred in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to the extent of about 80 per cent of the total. There are 600 fish plants along the east coast and they have an effect on over 200 communities.
In the short time remaining to me, Mr. Speaker, let me speak more generally about the fishing industry. First of all, we must note that it is a world-wide industry and that Canada is only a part of it. For that reason, we must deal with other nations and other jurisdictions in order to achieve our great potential in the fishing industry. When I mention the worldwide involvement of the fishing industry, I am mindful of the fact that no treaty affecting the scallop fishery and the fishery on Georges Bank has been signed between the United States and Canada. We along the east coast of Nova Scotia urge the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take action in this respect. Any delay will cause the disruption of the industry and potential irreparable damage. We deal with other foreign states. Recently one of the assistant deputy ministers in the department brought public attention to the fact that a new treaty must be negotiated with France which will affect the cod allocations in the Gulf of St. Lawrence to prevent the fishing industry operating in the Gulf of St. Lawrence from being jeopardized. We are very conscious of the world-wide connections of the industry and we urge the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) to be conscious of it as well.
As well as dealing with other nations, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in his role as supervisor of the fishing industry in Canada, must deal with the provinces, and, as we all know, that has caused a great deal of grief and concern. We in Nova Scotia support the position that the federal authority must take total responsibility for the fishing industry. That is not to say that the provinces should not be consulted in matters of vital interest to them, particularly, as I have mentioned, in the matter of the allocation of the Gulf of St. Lawrence fish stocks.
In 1976, by action of the federal government, Nova Scotia-based fishermen were precluded from entering into the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the purpose of utilizing northern cod stocks. That situation was remedied in 1979 and an allocation was made in the Sydney-Bight area just outside the traditional Gulf of St. Lawrence area. This is a very important segment of the Nova Scotia fishing industry where 1,000 metric tons of cod are caught, producing 35 jobs and around $750,000 in revenue. It has been said that the Nova Scotia fishing fleet

October 27, 1980
Fishing Industry
could easily take 23,000 metric tons of cod fish without affecting the over-all industry, fish which, instead, are taken by France and other foreign nations.
1 do not need to remind the House what a tremendous economic liability we suffer in Nova Scotia from not having access to the Gulf of St. Lawrence stocks. It is up to the minister to resolve these federal-provincial problems. He can only resolve them by conducting negotiations with those concerned, not by confrontation or by putting down those who are legitimately in the fishing industry, whether it be inshore of offshore. But that, I am afraid, is not the course which the minister has pursued in the past. He has said, and I have the quotation here, that he is not running a winter works program, that he cannot react to the needs of the fish plant workers and the employment problems in areas which are dependent on the fishing industry. That is the kind of remark which causes difficulty and destroys understanding, and for which the minister must take responsibility.
Last Sunday I was watching the proceedings in the House as re-telecast on the CBC and I saw the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) making a particularly earthy speech, typical of a person using earthy language. My son, who is only 11 years old, was there listening with me and he asked me, "Who is that?" I said, "That is the Minister of Agriculture", to which my son said, "Thank God he is not the minister of fisheries". But I had to say to him that I am not at all certain that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans possesses a greater understanding of his portfolio than does the Minister of Agriculture, and certainly he lacks the knowledge which it is imperative for him to have if he is properly to supervise the fishing industry in Canada.
I should like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to draw attention to some of the problems of the fishermen in Nova Scotia and elsewhere on the east coast. They are the victims of the lack of a clear licensing policy on the part of the federal government. There are part-time fishermen who have licences and do not fish, but there are also full-time fishermen who cannot get licences and who cannot upgrade their equipment and their vessels because of confusion over licensing. This must be remedied immediately. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has told us that in 1981 he will introduce a new fisheries licence policy, but we have no guarantee that it will be any better than the last.
Another concern of the fishermen in my area is that the government should clarify its policy on loans for vessel construction. Anyone who has delved into this matter knows about the confusion caused by the size of boats and the great number of years before which they qualify for replacement. Action has to be taken in this respect.
With regard to small-craft harbours, the government and the department has a budget of $15 million for this item. But do you know, Mr. Speaker, that they cannot even put a light on a wharf in a small-craft harbour so that the fishermen can utilize the wharf at night, in the early morning and when the sun goes down at six o'clock? A wharf costing thousands of dollars is not much use if it remains unlighted in order to save
the federal treasury $100 or $200. This must be changed and we must start paying attention to our small-craft harbours.
There are many other matters which need mentioning- some of them were covered by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse). There is the matter of direct sales which has destroyed the squid industry. We must find other ways to get a fair price for our fishermen. There is the matter of aquaculture, in which Norway is way ahead of us. They are already producing tons of valuable fish species through an aquaculture process. With regard to research, we welcome the fact that notwithstanding the closure by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of the fisheries lab, National Sea Products and H.P. Nickerson have formed a company to develop fisheries research. The name of the company is Fishes Resource Development Limited. I hope the minister will give the company some assistance because research is such an important segment of the fishing industry.
In manufacturing, we are spending $130 million on purchasing fish equipment outside Canada. This, too, must be changed. We have to develop an equipment manufacturing sector.
I see that the clock has reached ten. I will terminate my speech by warning the minister that if he does not take action, the motion against him will indeed be supported on all sides of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to inform the house that the proceedings under section (11) of Standing Order 58 are deemed to have terminated.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 20, as recorded in Hansard at pages 3822 and 3823 I put a couple of questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) in his capacity as the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am grateful to the minister for being here tonight so that we can
October 27, 1980

discuss again for a few minutes the important issue involved in the question 1 put to him.
I always hope that in one of these late shows one might get a favourable answer which tells us we are winning in an important cause. If the minister is not able to do that tonight, at least I hope he will leave the door open so that it will not be long before we do win what I regard as a very important issue.
As hon. members are aware, for about 50 years we had a provision in the Pension Act which denied a pension as of right to a widow of a disabled veteran if that disabled veteran's disability pension was below 48 per cent. Some of us feel that that provision was wrong through all of those 50 years; we finally got rid of it earlier in this session. Indeed, it was the last activity on the part of the former minister, the Hon. Daniel MacDonald, on July 9, when what was then Bill C-40 was put to the House. It has since become chapter 19 of the statutes of 1980.
That bill did some other things as well, but the main thing it did was to bring to an end that 48 per cent rule and to establish a regime under which pensions can be paid to widows in cases where the veterans' disability rate was below 48 per cent.
That was good. That was an important, red letter day. It was a landmark decision on the part of the Parliament of Canada. However, there was in it a provision which for many widows will spoil it because many of the widows I have in mind will not live to draw the pension to which they are entitled under that piece of legislation.
The reason is that there was included in the bill a phasing-in period which means it will take six and a half years before all the widows given entitlement under that legislation draw their pensions. The phasing-in works on the basis of what the rate of pension was. This month, October, pensions are payable if the disability rate was 38 per cent or more. In April it will come down five more points, and then each year after that it will come down five points until finally, in 1986, the piece of legislation will be fully in effect.
1 think this was most unfair. I think it was thoughtless and that this House should not have been asked to include that phasing-in provision in this piece of legislation. I am sure-I know-that the former minister did not like it. In fact, before the House met on April 14 he indicated that he hoped to bring back the bill regarding widows' pensions which had been introduced in the previous session by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) when he was minister of veterans affairs but that he hoped to improve it, particularly with respect to the phasing-in period. However, when he brought down the bill, it was the same bill we had had from the hon. member for Victoria. The result is that in this month of October about 1,500 widows will qualify for the pension we passed in July. But that leaves 24,500 widows who have to wait six months, a year and a half or up to six and a half years. Surely that can be corrected.
Adjournment Debate
I know the argument put forward is that we must consider the costs. The statistics we have been provided show that in the first full year of operation this plan will cost about $6 million and that in the final year when all the widows are covered it will cost about $42 million a year. That is a difference of $36 million a year. To any of us as individuals that is a lot of money, but around here it is not very much. As for the envelope system they have over there, there is nothing sacrosanct about it, that each department gets only so much money. The Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs who is also the Minister of National Defence could recommend to the government a transfer of $36 million a year from the budget of the Department of National Defence to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the people in national defence would not know he had done it. They would have to leave the wing off one airplane or something like that.
There is no logical argument for this. Surely there is a place for compassion and understanding. These women are older women, and I hope we will find a way either to shorten that phasing-in period or to get rid of it altogether. I have had a lot of experience around here writing letters to constituents and to persons all over Canada. 1 have never had more difficulty that I have in writing to widows who are 75, 77 or 78 years of age who tell me they have written in about their pensions and they have had a letter back from the appropriate official in which he says, "Yes, your entitlement has been established, but please write us again in 1985 and we will see that you get the pension in 1986." How does one say that to a woman who is 77 or 78 years of age and who thought that Parliament had given here entitlement to a pension as a widow of a disabled veteran?
The minister said the other day that the department would take care of urgent cases. The government always puts it that way. We are not asking for charity or welfare. We are asking for what is their right. As I say, I hope the minister will say yes tonight. I know it is in his heart to do so. If somebody is keeping him from doing that, at least I hope he will leave the door open for making this needed change to this session's Bill C-40.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, considering the importance of the subject matter and the well-known interest of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the subject, it is only fitting that the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs should answer his question, even though parliamentary secretaries or other members of Parliament sometimes answer for ministers.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you.


Mr. Lamontagne:: The hon. member knows of the government's commitment to help those Canadians who need it most. This is very important. This pledge was kept last July when the late Hon. Daniel MacDonald introduced Bill C-40 in the House. With the co-operation of all members, the bill received quick passage and made available to the widows of disability pensioners benefits which had not previously been available to them. The hon. member just mentioned that in his remarks.

October 27, 1980
Adjournment Debate
The Pension Act was amended to ensure that widows of veterans who died while receiving disability pensions of between 5 per cent and 47 per cent were eligible to receive proportionate widows' pensions which amounted to half of what the veterans received prior to death. These new provisions came into effect on October 1 of this year for the widows of veterans who were receiving pensions of 39 per cent to 47 per cent. The approximate 1500 widows in this group, as mentioned by the hon. member, endured hardships as a result of the extent of their spouses' disabilities and may not now be as financially secure as they would have been had the veteran not been disabled. These widows are now eligible for immediate assistance from this government. On April 1 of each succeeding year until 1986 other groups of widows are to become eligible for benefits-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Provided they are still alive.


Maurice Lamontagne: That is what you just mentioned. However, Bill C-40 also amended the War Veterans Allowance Act. This legislation provides income support to veterans, widows and their dependants. Should a widow, who is not yet receiving widows' benefits under the Pension Act, be in financial need, assistance may be sought from the department under the War Veterans Allowance Act. Bill C-40 made substantial amendments to this legislation and corrected many of the inadequacies which had developed over the years.
The veterans under age 65-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. 1 am unable to catch the hon. minister's eye. I have to warn him that his allotted time is about to expire.


Maurice Lamontagne: Could 1 just finish, Mr. Speaker? The veterans under age 65 are presently benefiting from the additional $106 million made available in Bill C-40, which was not available in the veterans bill presented by the previous government last December.
In conclusion, this government is proud of what it has accomplished for veterans in this country and we remain committed to helping those persons who need it most. That is why the War Veterans Allowance Act was amended. Should the economic climate improve we would be prepared to have another look at the implementation strategy and I can assure the hon. member that I will put pressure on when it is possible. To help those who need it most is the essence of our policy.
I know I can count on the collaboration of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and maybe after tomorrow night we might be able to do something more. I can assure you that if we can do it for the veterans we will do it.


PENITENTIARIES-HOSTAGE-TAKING INCIDENTS-DANGER POSED TO GUARDS-INQUIRY AS TO GOVERNMENT ACTION
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on October 14, 1980, I asked the Solicitor General what he proposed to do about the situation at Dorchester Penitentiary in the province of New Brunswick. My question followed an incident which had occurred the weekend before which resulted in the death of William Morrison. Mr. Morrison, as you may know, was taken along with another guard as a hostage and in an attempt to rescue both Mr. Morrison and the other guard, Mr. Morrison met his death. This was a most serious and tragic event and one which concerned not only the members of this House but all those involved in the corrections system. However, the incident and the resulting death were not without warning as far as the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) is concerned. Just a few days before, on October 9, acting under Standing Order 43, I asked the House to instruct the minister to conduct an investigation of the activities that were taking place at Dorchester Penitentiary. This was not the first time I had addressed questions to the minister on the subject. In June and July of 1980 there were rumours that there were difficulties in Dorchester Penitentiary which resulted from the transfer to that institution of dangerous persons who had been incarcerated in the British Columbia Penitentiary and other federal institutions. The Solicitor General, in response to this complaint, indicated that such was not the case. But I, nonetheless, gave to the minister my concerns about dangerous offenders who were incarcerated in Dorchester Penitentiary, and in other federal institutions. I asked the minister whether he did not think that all the hard core inmates across the prison system who had demonstrated that they were violent and dangerous should not be gathered into one group and sent to one institution for incarceration. The minister, in reply to my question during the proceedings of the justice committee, said he could not dismiss the hope in connection with any human being that he would not change his attitude and decide that he would like to go straight. The minister went on to suggest to me and to the members of the committee that it was right and proper to keep hard-core, dangerous offenders in institutions where they were in contact with other prisoners, notwithstanding that most people would have given up any hope of reform on their part. He said that one of the objectives of the prison system was to keep inmates, however dangerous, as close as possible to ties they had with the street so that rehabilitation could be reinforced if the inmate did choose to go straight.
The three inmates who caused the incident at Dorchester which resulted in the death of William Morrison can hardly be taken to have made such a decision. All three had been previously charged and convicted of murder and had been denied parole except after the minimum period of 25 years. Yet they were abroad in that institution.
My purpose in speaking again on the matter tonight is to implore the Solicitor General to take some action that will protect prison guards and other employees of our federal
October 27, 1980

national security institutions from dangerous and violent prisoners. The minister said in response to my question that he had now begun to prepare a list of names of those offenders across the system who are the most violent and dangerous and who represent the greatest threat to order in those institutions.
This action comes too late for William Morrison and his family, as well as for other guards who have had such difficulties with other prisoners in the past. Surely, some action must be taken now. It has been said to me by persons who work in the prisons that since the abolition of the death penalty and the imposition of long periods in which a prisoner is not eligible for parole the situation is quite different in maximum security institutions from what it was. Prisoners have no hope of release within a reasonable period of time. They are under no constraint whatever and can suffer no greater punishment than has already been inflicted upon them.
The minister must change his policy, gather up the violent and dangerous prisoners in our institutions and take some action. Perhaps the best action would be to open the doors of the prisons to public scrutiny so that we might know what is going on in those federal institutions. We have asked for an inquiry, and 1 would repeat our request that the Solicitor General allow a public, independent body to examine our prison system to suggest what I regard as necessary reforms.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, I think members on both sides of the House will agree with the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby), that it was a most serious, tragic event that happened at Dorchester. On Tuesday, October 14, 1980, the hon. member raised this issue requesting information with regard to the number of incidents which have occurred in federal institutions and asking what action the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) intends to undertake to respond to these warnings.
The hon. member further asked why the Solicitor General had rendered the correctional officers and staff helpless in the face of obvious danger. I respectfully submit that that is an overstatement, albeit in the form of a question. The Solicitor General rejects the allegation that he has rendered the correctional officers and staff helpless. As he stated to the House on Tuesday, October 14, the correctional service is at present preparing a list of the names of those offenders across the system who are the most violent and dangerous and who represent the greatest threat to order in the institutions.
We are not dealing with a tea-party. Everybody in a correctional institution is there because he has committed a crime, probably several crimes. It is individuals of this type we must sort out. It is a very difficult job. Once the list has been completed, consideration will be given to additional programs within the institution to further protect the correctional officers. We all agree that they have a very difficult job to perform, one that most people do not want to undertake.
Adjournment Debate
All incidents are reported direct to the Solicitor General and a security inquiry is conducted on each serious incident. The service attempts to learn from these incidents by analysing the circumstances and applying solutions, when possible, on a national basis in order to prevent further occurrences.
More specifically, definite action has been taken in terms of the difficult problems which have plagued Dorchester Penitentiary in recent months. The Inspector General, at the request of the Solicitor General, conducted inquiries into every major incident at Dorchester. In that vein, the Solicitor General should have in his hands very soon, the latest report on the tragic hostage-taking incident which resulted in the death of correctional officer William Morrison. These inquiries will no doubt recommend certain actions to be followed. The management team at the institution did develop a plan of action to review and reinforce security measures throughout the institution. In late August, the institution was locked up in order to facilitate cell by cell searches as well as several surprise searches of cells. New security fences were installed inside Dorchester's walls; posts and post duties were also reviewed. Unfortunately, however, the latest tragic incident took place.
The experience acquired as a result of the designing and implementation of this plan will be of benefit to the service on a national basis. Nevertheless, we are not dealing with an exact science; we are dealing with an art. Unless we take every offender out and shoot him, these problems will continue. That is the only way you will not have any repeaters-when they create the offence, just shoot them. That is the guarantee of not having a repeater.


Howard Edward Crosby: That is not what your minister says.


Ron Irwin: I suggest that as long as we have people in prison there will be difficulties. Our first and foremost duty is not to rehabilitate but to ensure that the guards and members of the institution who are looking after the people, are protected. After that we have a duty to rehabilitate the offenders.
I want to assure the hon. member that this is of concern to all of us. We regret the incident as much as he does, but it did occur, and we have to find solutions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-FUNDING OF BAND HOUSING
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on May 12 I put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development about the subsidy housing program for Indian bands. I wanted to know when the amount of $12,000 per unit would be increased. This question resulted from a number of representations I had received from Indian bands across the Algoma-Manitoulin area.
As everyone knows, the whole Indian housing program has been a top priority in terms of need. A recent survey indicated that 26 per cent of Indian families are doubling or tripling up in order to find accommodation, and 25 per cent of the homes

October 27, 1980
Adjournment Debate
on Indian lands require urgent repairs. A number of other problems of health and safety have been implicated in the lack of adequate housing for Indian bands and that is the reason for the number of representations I have received from the bands in my constituency.
On July 31, the minister announced an increase in the allocation of financial assistance for Indian housing projects from $12,000 per unit to around $20,000 or $22,000 per unit, as well as a certain amount of increased assistance from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The statement by the minister on that date indicated that this increase in subsidy from $12,000 to approximately $22,000 would be supplemented by job-creation programs. That is really where the problem starts, because although the minister indicated the increase in his press release, the amount of assistance available through the Department of Employment and Immigration has dropped drastically. Although additional funding is available through the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the kind of financial assistance available for the labour and construction of band housing has dropped drastically. For instance, in the Algoma constituency our allocation this year for native projects under the Community Development Program was only $115,000 for some 12 Indian bands and some 4,000 to 5,000 status Indians. In past years, for instance, in 1979-1980 under the transitional LEAP program, of the $923,242 we received, much of it went to housing. In 1978-1979 under the Canada Works program, of the $721,386 we received, much of it went to housing and in 1977-1978, we received $743,902. It is very apparent from the kinds of representations I am receiving from bands throughout my constituency that there is inadequate funding for the labour portion in the construction of homes.
It is important for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) who, after all, has the final responsibility for Indian housing and for direct employment programs throughout the winter to thoroughly review the matter and see that additional funding is provided, otherwise the serious housing problem which now exists will not be corrected and a lot of people will be unemployed who should be employed under the direct employment programs over the winter months.


Walter David Baker: Your plea will fall on deaf ears.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, on July 31, 1980, the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development (Mr. Munro) announced that an additional $20 million would be allocated this fiscal year to improve Indian housing on reserves. At that time the housing subsidy was increased from a maximum of $12,000 per unit to a maximum of $22,125. This amount is supplemented by a transportation allowance of up to $7,000 for construction of housing units in very remote areas of Canada.
My hon. friend from Algoma has, I believe, 17 or 18 reserves in his riding and I know he is always concerned about the plight of the Indian. As far as job-creation opportunities are concerned, my friend should also realize that right now it is not just the Indian who is suffering, but also the white man with closures such as those at Chrysler and Massey-Ferguson. Notwithstanding this subsidy, the Indian still does not have enough to build proper housing. I am familiar with the housing that is being built. Therefore, CMHC has made available loans over and above the subsidy. The construction that is being done in my friend's riding is being done quite well, according to CMHC and national housing standards.
There is a thrust toward community-based planning and development of Indian self-government which I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you are well aware presents quite a problem. How far does the government go into telling the Indian what to do? How far does the Indian go in as governing his own affairs? There has been a compromise of sorts following this concept. For example, when a band obtains approval for the construction of ten houses, capital subsidies for ten units will be forwarded to the band. The band will then allocate the subsidy dollars to band members or to band-owned housing projects, or a mixture of both. This will be done in accordance with the chief and council's perceptions of who needs housing units the most. The band's only commitment is to see that at least ten housing units are built for an input of ten units of housing subsidy.
In 1980, after consultation between the Department of Indian Affairs, Indian associations, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and other departments and agencies of the government, a comprehensive set of recommendations concerning this subject was developed. The government is continuing to review means to revise an on-reserve housing policy and program to seek the most effective means to overcome the present backlog of new housing units required and the larger number of existing units in need of repairs.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Tuesday, October 28, 1980