1981-12-03

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, the incompetent and sluggish way the federal government handled a comparatively minor oil spill this past year from the vessel Edgar Jourdain at Hall Beach in the Arctic demonstrates the government's complete inability to respond effectively to any kind of oil spill in Canadian waters, much less a major one. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House calls upon the government to launch a full public inquiry into the Edgar Jourdain incident with a view to overhauling Canada's oil spill clean-up capabilities.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The major chartered banks have stated publicly that they have increased funds for the Small Business Development Bond program and one bank has specified that it has increased the fund to $650 million, but as yet there is no evidence that the banks have increased the availability of this money to our farmers and small businesses which are on the verge of bankruptcy. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House directs the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism to report on the meeting federal officials were scheduled to have with the chartered banks earlier this week, and that he ensure on an ongoing basis the banks honour the commitment to process bond applications immediately in order
to prevent any further foreclosures in the hard-pressed farming and small business industries.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPORT FOR TREATMENT OF EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, on December 1, officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare met with Mr. Pavel Kozak and encouraged him to continue his efforts to establish relations with Canadian physicians in his treatment of epidermolysis bullosa. In view of the fact that this acceptance brings Mr. Kozak's treatment one step closer to being made available to Canadians in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House recognize and support Mr. Kozak in his efforts to make this treatment for epidermolysis bullosa accessible to scores of Canadians who suffer from this disorder.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its agreement to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas more often than not, the words and actions of all politicians are analysed, dissected, and severely and sometimes unfairly criticized by some journalists who behave like blood-

December 3, 1981
thirsty predators, I therefore move, seconded by the member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That the House take this opportunity to repay these people in kind and censure those who cannot be bothered to rise and stand at attention as a sign of respect when the national anthem is sung, as was the case yesterday in this House, and as happens elsewhere on other occasions, in the hope that they will accept this as constructive criticism, just as a politician must accept criticism that is all too often unfair or unjustified.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FREEDOM OF THE SEAS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On December 1, David McTaggert, Canadian skipper of the Greenpeace III, a vessel of Canadian registry, was boarded in international waters by officers of a French warship as McTaggert was protesting further nuclear testing in the South Pacific. A similar incident occurred in 1973 at which time Mr. McTaggert was injured, removed from his vessel, and incarcerated by French authorities. The Government of Canada later offered Mr. McTaggert an ex gratia payment to espouse his cause.
I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That once the allegation of boarding is confirmed, our government protest in the strongest possible terms this act of piracy on the high seas, condemn further nuclear testing by France in the South Pacific, and urge that that country become a signatory to a treaty banning further nuclear weapons testing, both atmospheric and underground.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, certain reforms to the unemployment insurance program are being promoted by the Minister of Employment and Immigration
(Mr. Axworthy). Atlantic Canadians, and particularly the seasonally employed, would be especially hard hit, and there is little doubt that many of these people would end up on welfare as 40 per cent of the saving would come from that region. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain):
That this government be instructed to clean up its fiscal fiascos from within and not to take out its blundering ineptness on the backs of Atlantic Canadian workers by forcing them into the nation's growing line-ups to the soup kitchens.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the Liberal backbenchers in this House gave the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) a standing ovation after he presented his budget on November 12. The Liberal Party cheered him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: And what for? Taxing immigrants for sending help to their aged mothers in their homelands, destroying the hopes of farmers who want to sell their land and retire, killing incentive to invest and throwing hundreds of Canadians out of work-that's what for! Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House urges the Liberal backbenchers to stop being clones of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and start reflecting the wishes of their constituents and throw this budget into the-you know what.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the predictions of the minister responsible for housing that uncontrolled rents will double by the end of next year, his suggestions to provinces that the removal of rent controls would be viewed with favour by the federal government, and his recommendations to
December 3, 1981

Canadian families that they make do with orange crates for furniture, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the minister responsible for housing conditions in this country refrain from calling on the provinces to remove the protection of rent controls, an action which would make basic shelter so expensive for many Canadian families that orange crates would become the only furniture that they could afford.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TOURISM
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe) voted in favour of his government's constitutional resolution because he believed the national interest must prevail over regional or provincial interests. Yet this same minister is prepared to scuttle a national tourism policy, stating, "I have no intention of pursuing a national tourism plan without Quebec." I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House instructs the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism to work consistently in the national interest and, specifically, to pursue a national tourism policy with or without the support of any province or territory.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter that is urgent and pressing. In view of the fact that the right to travel on company passes has been part of the wage and pension package of railway workers, and since the railway companies and VIA Rail no longer honour the passes of retired CN employees in western Canada on the sole remaining western transcontinental passenger train, which goes over CPR tracks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That the Minister of Transport direct the railway companies to honour all passes on VIA trains and that the minister require Canadian National and Canadian Pacific to compensate VIA Rail fully for the cost of transporting their pass holders.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the budget affects Canadian taxpayers' cash flow, their insurance and retirement planning, their investment preferences, and places severe restrictions on the amount of retiring allowances available to the average Canadian worker that can be placed tax free into registered retirement savings plans for the future protection of their families, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the present budget be withdrawn.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


ADVICE TENDERED BY GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I trust that the gathering of the clans in Scotland was more pleasant than the reception he received on his return to Canada. Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada has for some time been pressing to have the government adopt a tougher fiscal policy. We have a classic example of bad timing in this latest budget because the government is now increasing tax revenues by 31 per cent and Mr. Bouey is saying he is going to continue the high interest rate policy just as we are going into the deepest recession we have had in 30 years. Will the minister explain why, after years of ignoring Mr. Bouey, he has chosen to increase taxes by 31 per cent and push us more heavily into a recession and heavier job losses?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.

December 3, 1981
Oral Questions
member for mentioning the fact that I had an opportunity to visit in St. Andrew's, Scotland, and to celebrate St. Andrew's Day in that historic city. The welcome I received when I got back was as warm as the welcome I received in Scotland,


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member has asked a very complex question about the budget strategy. It is all laid out in the budget speech. The hon. member knows that in an effort to reduce interest rates, and in an effort to counter inflation, I took some very substantial actions to reduce the deficit over the next year. If he will look at a recent speech made by his leader before the budget, that was the very prescription which he offered.
I am attempting in the budget to recognize that the underlying problem in the Canadian economy is high interest rates and high inflation. Until we get a better grip on both these problems and get further downward movement, then the prospect of resuming growth in the economy will be very bleak indeed. I ask the hon. member to take more than one or two months' outlook, to take a rather longer-term outlook and understand that the basic purpose of this budget is to restore the conditions for growth and job creation in the country.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, having been away from the House for six of the last eight days, the minister probably has not had a chance to get caught up on what is going on in this country. I want to ask him a question that is very pertinent. On Tuesday in this House, while he was away enjoying Scotland, the Prime Minister made the statement that this was a stimulative budget, that it was going to stimulate employment in this country. The minister has said quite clearly that it is a deflationary budget. Will he explain to the House who is right? Who is calling government policy? Is it a stimulative budget as the Prime Minister stated, or a deflationary budget as stated by the Minister of Finance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member must realize that he has been among the strongest critics of the rate of increase in government expenditures. He has used the incorrect figure that there is a more than 20 per cent increase in the rate-


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Twenty-two per cent.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He has used more than a 20 per cent rate of increase in annual expenditures. The rate is lower than that.


An hon. Member:: It is your figure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If we take the test of rate of growth used by the former minister of finance, it is quite considerably less.


Mr. Clark:: But is it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would suggest if the hon. member were to look at the expenditure cutting that has taken place in the United States, for example, or if he were to take a look at the expenditure cutting that has taken place in the United Kingdom, then he would find that the comment of the Prime Minister is rather relevant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CONSIDER CREATION OF JOB-PROMOTIONAL PROGRAMS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, that answer is straight out of the Highlands of Scotland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think that the minister might have been taking a little too much of what was in the Highlands of Scotland when he was over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister talks of restraint. The only restraint is on those in the private sector who are paying higher taxes, who are suffering under high interest rates and who have seen many of the job-promotional tax incentives removed by the budget. These are the taxes that are financing the 22 per cent increase in spending about which I have been talking. I challenge the minister in Committee of the Whole to debate that point with me.
Because this is a recessionary budget, what measures is the minister considering in order to offset the deflationary impact of the budget and to create some job-promotional programs which will face the very serious problem of recession in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member again for giving me such a high compliment on my last answer by saying that it came straight from the Highlands of Scotland. That is a pretty good mark, as far as I am concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I cannot make up the hon. member's mind for him during question period. He has to make up his own mind.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I have.


Charles Joseph Clark: We have.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And the members of his party have to make up their minds and decide whether they want a policy that is geared now to winding down inflation-
December 3, 1981


An hon. Member:: It is your policy we are after.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and high interest rates. Do they want that? Or do you want a stimulative budget? Do you want to add massively to the deficit? Do you want to increase interest rates further and cause further stagnation in the economy?
The problem with the hon. member's questions, Madam Speaker, is that they arise from a total lack of any policy with respect to the current situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: They quote the Prime Minister.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is one day increase spending, and the next day it is reduce the deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. I can assure the Chair that it has to do with a situation for which the Minister of Finance is responsible, and that is the serious housing crisis in the country. Apart from the advice that he gave to young people in the Atlantic provinces to make do with orange crates for furniture and to lower their expectations to that which existed over two decades ago, and apart from the advice that he had for the provinces to reduce rent controls, may I ask the minister responsible for housing what advice does he have for Canadians who are facing a 20 per cent increase in housing costs, who are facing a 50 per cent decline in housing starts, and who are facing zero vacancy rates? What advice does he have for Canadians as they move into next year with the worst housing crisis in this country since the Second World War?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I indicated that in the last week or so I had the opportunity to exchange views with the ministers of housing from the various provinces and with the Premier of Manitoba. In that exchange I had the opportunity of pointing out the details and provisions of the Canada mortgage renewal plan in the budget. I had the opportunity of working with the provincial ministers and getting their views on the budget provision to increase rental assistance through the rental stimulus program in the budget, and to explain to them how the S350 million allocated over the next two years in the budget would assist housing across the country.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION FROM MINISTER
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, perhaps the minister would explain to the House what he meant when he advised the young people of the country to make do with orange crates as furniture and to lower their
Oral Questions
expectations. I think the House is entitled to an explanation from the minister responsible for housing, as are also the 80 families in the Mississauga-Toronto area who are being evicted by CMHC in order that the corporation may take advantage of the shortfall in the market which the minister and the corporation created. Perhaps he could explain that to us as well.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, on the last question first, I would be delighted to explain the point. I appreciate that in the former government the hon. member was responsible for another portfolio. It was not housing; I believe it was fisheries. With his responsibility to the House as critic for housing, he should have looked at the records and should understand that it was the government of which he was a member and that it was the minister of housing of that government, who sits two seats away from him today, who authorized the policy, the acquisition of the project, and the sale of those 80 units.


Mr. Blenkarn:: But you are doing it.


FEDERAL PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Having shared the low road with the opposition finance critic, I hope he will take the high road and answer my question. Last week I had the opportunity to question some of the minister's colleagues about the proposed cutbacks in federal transfer payments to the provinces.
The minister should be aware that changes in hospital policies were announced yesterday by the Ontario health minister, Dennis Timbrell. As a result of these changes there will be fewer and fewer beds available to those without private health insurance, thus foreshadowing the creation of a two-tier health care system in Ontario-one for the affluent and one for the poor. In our view this is but a bad foretaste of things to come in some other provinces. How does the minister square yesterday's announcement with the impression he likes to give that health care will not be adversely affected by the cutbacks proposed in the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no difficulty repeating what I have said in the House before, and what I have repeated before the finance ministers. Under the new proposals which I have made to the provinces, the expenditures or the transfers to the provinces will increase each year in phase with increases in federal expenditures.


Miss MacDonald:: It is still a cutback.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I see no justification, on the basis of the projections which I have put forward, for a cutback in medi-
13680

December 3, 1981
Oral Questions
care or hospital insurance. If a province wants to take a step along those lines, it is the business of the province. But to blame it on the federal government is just an old political trick, to which the hon. member must have become accustomed over the years.


ACTION TAKEN BY PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the minister will have to think twice if he thinks the culpability of the federal government for the erosion of medicare will be forgotten in this corner of the House. In the budget paper of November 12 entitled "Fiscal Arrangements in the Eighties- Proposals of the Government of Canada", the minister expressed the intention of the government to clarify "basic principles or national standards for medicare". My question is simple. Does the Minister of Finance regard this latest step by Ontario, in which the use of user fees for hospital care is being greatly encouraged, as a step back from the standards he intends to negotiate with the provinces and, if so, what will he do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I should like to mention to the hon. member that in the proposals which I have put before the provinces it is intended that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will have discussions with the provinces with respect to program conditions over the next year. Also it is indicated in the same document that the Secretary of State will have discussions with the provinces with respect to postsecondary education. It will not be the Minister of Finance who will be responsible for discussions on program standards in the health field, or for the determination of national objectives in the field of post-secondary education. These matters will be dealt with by the program ministers.


NATIONAL MEDICARE STANDARDS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the document to which I referred is part of the budget papers brought down by the Minister of Finance. I have a further question for the minister about the clarification and enforcement of national standards for health care in Canada.
Can the minister tell the House, and through the House tell all those Canadians who are rightly concerned about what they see as the erosion of medicare, whether he supports the position taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that the elimination of extra billing by physicians should be made a requirement for full federal funding of medicare? If he does support this position, why is there no mention of extra billing or, for that matter, of any other concrete problem in the medicare system, such as user fees, as objectives in that section of the budget concerned with national standards for medicare?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the answer is fairly clear. There is no detailed outline of program standards
because that particular subject matter will be discussed between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and her provincial counterparts. It will be her responsibility to lay out her proposals to them which, obviously, will be the proposals of the Government of Canada.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. I would like to ask the minister whether it is a new policy of his department to make sure that inmates serving sentences in penitentiaries in Quebec will have more difficulties from now on receiving visits from their relatives? My question stems from the bad news released today to the effect that some inmates presently kept at the Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Penitentiary would be transferred to far away institutions in other provinces. What is the minister going to do to make sure that this does hot happen?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as the House knows, we are moving toward full capacity in the maximum and medium institutions in the province of Quebec. This is the reason that I approved, and that the government approved, the construction of two new institutions in that province. I am aware of the policy that, in view of the overcrowding, some inmates should be moved from the province of Quebec to adjoining provinces. The criteria being used were brought to my attention for the first time this morning, and I must say that they seem unfair to me. I am looking them over and, if a more fair way can be found to decide which inmates should be moved, a more fair way will be followed.


THE ECONOMY
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. There are well over one million Canadians unemployed today. This figure upsets all the minister's forecasts for unemployment, and the budget is only making things worse. The minister is reported as having said recently that he must ignore the country's unemployed in order to continue his fight against inflation. I would say that is just heartless.
How long will the minister continue to ignore and condemn thousands of Canadians to a winter of unemployment before he changes his restrictive budget policies? Specifically, can the minister tell us what the jobless rate will be for this winter? does he have an estimate for the jobless rate this winter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would be the last
December 3, 1981

person in the House to suggest that I would ignore the plight of the unemployed, because I deeply believe that the creation of jobs and economic growth must be the long-term objective, and because I believe that the main obstacle to economic growth and job creation in the country at the present time is the high inflation rate. It is because of these considerations that I have established the policy contained in the budget. My objective is to create the conditions that will provide jobs in the country.
The estimate of unemployment for this year is laid out in the budget papers. I could get that statistic, but it is available to the hon. member in the budget papers.


Charles Joseph Clark: It is already out of date.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the budget figure that the minister refers to is already out of date and he should know that, or he knows far less about the economy than even he professes. The figure in the budget papers is 7.2 per cent for this year and 7.8 per cent for next year, but unemployment is already running at 8.3 per cent. That is why I thought the minister had some new estimate. Perhaps he should stay at home more often and we could get these answers.


EFFECT OF TAX CHANGES CONTAINED IN BUDGET
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I should like to pose another question to the minister which refers to the analysis of the budget made by the Canadian Council on Social Development. The Council says it is a budget which takes from the wealthy and gives to the rich, and points out that taxpayers in the $50,000 to $75,000 bracket will receive an additional gain of some $85 million this year, whereas homelessness and personal bankruptcy can be expected to rise as inflation continues to erode the already meagre purchasing power of single parents, the elderly, the disabled and working poor. 1 want to ask the minister why he has chosen to fight inflation on the backs of single parents, the elderly and the working poor, when he is prepared to give $85 million to those in higher income brackets.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has suggested that I ought to stay at home. I think the trick is to decide when to be away, and when to be at home. She has never learned that trick, because she was away at a rather crucial time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The word "trick" is operative. No one doubts your trickiness, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the tax increases-


Charles Joseph Clark: Try another trick.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that are taken into effect in the budget come mainly from high income earners in the country. We have provided tax decreases for a wide range of taxpayers. Less than one million taxpayers will have increased taxes and a large proportion of them will be in the high income brackets.
We have also restructured the federal tax credit in order to flow substantial benefits into the 1.5 millions low-income families in the country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Try another trick.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the purpose of the budget, not the distorted account that the hon. member is giving in her question.

[ Translation]


THE BUDGET
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Considering the minister's replies, it is clear that the situation during the next six or twelve months will probably be worse than it is today, and if I understood correctly, the minister has acknowledged that his budgetary measures can do nothing in the short or medium term to remedy the situation. The minister is also aware that thousands of companies and industries are shutting down, thus putting thousands of people out of work. I should like to ask the minister whether he has an estimate of the number of industries that are experiencing problems at the present time, and that will be obliged to shut down within the next six or twelve months, and if so, on the basis of his projections and estimates, what measures does he intend to introduce in order to prevent more industries from causing irreparable harm, as is the case at the present time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the government is constantly assessing what measures might be taken to assist in the development of the economy. My colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, has recounted, time and time again, the various steps which have been taken to assist affected industries. I would tell the hon. member that, when further new measures are developed, they will be announced in the usual way.

December 3, 1981
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER NEW BUDGET WILL BE PRESENTED BEFORE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary. It is clear the minister admits that his budget cannot meet the present needs of Canadians, including construction, homes and the needs of farmers. Estimates and critical reports to prove this have been received-as the minister is no doubt aware-from various sources. In the circumstances, to reassure the people of Canada who are bearing this burden and are anxious about the future, can the minister inform the House whether he intends to table a new budget before the holidays or at the beginning of next year, considering that his budget and budget policy have failed abysmally?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member obviously failed to notice in the budget a very substantial measure for housing in the country-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -which will contribute to the construction of rental-


Roch La Salle: Big farce, Mr. Minister!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -housing in Canada and will ensure that no Canadian home owner will lose a home because of high interest rates. As the hon. member noticed, that-


Charles Joseph Clark: It is false.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -particular series of provisions affects housing. I could go on and add that, concerning agriculture, we have ensured, through the Farm Credit Corporation, a program which will substantially reduce-


Roch La Salle: Fifty million! They need $500 million!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the interest rate for farmers who are in financial difficulty. We have targeted that program in accordance with the requests of the Minister of Agriculture and others who were zealously concerned about ensuring that those farmers in financial difficulty would be protected.


Charles Joseph Clark: It's your fault, Gene.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is precisely what we have done in the agricultural sector.


INDUSTRY
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, my question, which is directed to the President of the Treasury
Board, deals with his announcement last week concerning an investigation of Industry, Trade and Commerce involvement with Consolidated Computer Incorporated of Ottawa. We now know, through the committee and the appearance of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that over the years the taxpayers of Canada took a record $125 million bath on the government's involvement in this high tech loser. I wonder whether the minister could explain to the House how he expects the people of Canada to believe, in view of the record of the secrecy and inept management of the government on this matter, that any kind of full accountability or full disclosure will result if the government investigation is limited to some sort of in-house navel gazing.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, it is not a case of in-house navel gazing. I think the ministers of the Treasury Board decided it would be their responsibility to conduct an investigation into the affairs of CCI to try to determine what led to the position in which the government now finds itself. I have said that I have no objection to having the results of that investigation made public, and there may be other avenues which should be explored. I understand that the other night, before the committee, there was some suggestion that another form of inquiry should be made. Perhaps the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee might look into it. We are all anxious to get at all the facts.


REQUEST THAT AUDITOR GENERAL ASSIST IN INVESTIGATION
Mark Willson Rose: I am pleased to hear the response of the minister. I think he is aware that some very serious allegations have been made concerning the government's involvement in this company, such as cooking the books to disguise a growing debt during the-


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mark Willson Rose: -the seventies and eighties. The federal government ended up paying a disproportionate share, compared to the government of Ontario, of the debt that this company built up over the last few years. Government actions over the last few years have been based on delay of disclosure rather than managerial logic. Since the minister suggested that the Public Accounts Committee might suggest a further or different kind of an investigation, would the minister support a Public Accounts Committee request or motion that the Auditor General's department, a body which is independent of the government, be asked to assist in the investigation of this shameful waste of taxpayers' money?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I would imagine that the Auditor General has been fully apprised of the circumstances of CCI and will undoubtedly be conducting his normal investigations as the Auditor General of Canada. I reject any suggestion of
December 3, 1981

wrongdoing or anything else, for that matter, at this stage. I think this is a matter which merits investigation.
I appreciate the hon. member's concern. He may be concerned that this looks like it was conceived and managed by the policies of his party. That is not the case, either. We are trying to get at the facts, and we will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


HOUSING
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. On November 30, in a question directed to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the NDP alleged that the minister responsible for housing recently asked the new Manitoba government to abandon rent controls. I would like to ask the minister whether or not this allegation is true, or whether this is another example of opposition hyperbole and distortion.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, again, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to answer that question-


An hon. Member:: I'll bet you are!


Paul James Cosgrove: -because, indeed, the allegation or statement by the Leader of the New Democratic Party was, at best, inaccurate. I would like to indicate to the House that I have met with Premier Pawley and with the other housing ministers, and we have discussed the initiatives in the federal budget. It was after that that Premier Pawley raised the question of rent controls because his government was contemplating introducing the same. However, I would say that, from his discussion of his program, he took into account not only the concerns of renters, but also the concern of renters when it comes to rehabilitation of buildings, the concerns of young people who are coming into rental accommodation, and concern about the dampening effect of any legislation. My impression was that the premier, taking all of those things into account, would come up with the kind of regulation or rent control from which I think all provinces might have something to learn.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for housing. On previous occasions he told us he was unaware of what was in the budget pertaining to housing until just before the budget
Oral Questions
was introduced, and that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation only worked on budget advertising after the minister became aware of budget provisions. How does he explain the fact that Graphic Artists Studio S&B, 400 St. Antoine Street West, Montreal, was given details of budget advertising from CMHC on the Monday before the budget? I have in my hand a Purolator slip showing that Studio S&B were the senders of the questionable ad, in this case to the Cobourg Daily Star for Vickers and Benson.
Will the minister confirm to the House that what actually happened was that the distribution of the advertising started at 6 p.m. the night of the budget, two hours before the budget was brought down? Will he tell us whether he misled the House, or whether his actions were due to total incompetence?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the brief answer is that no person was aware who was not authorized and under normal budgetary security-all employees or civil servants in the employ or control of the federal government, no person beyond those was aware-


Mr. Beatty:: They were not civil servants.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Vickers or Mr. Benson?


Paul James Cosgrove: -or had in their possession the particulars of the ad which, I repeat, contained two things, an "attention" to home owners, and a phone number to call for particulars of the mortgage renewal plan.


QUERY RESPECTING PREPARATION OF ADVERTISEMENT
Thomas Charles Cossitt: I realize that it would be unparliamentary to say that the minister was purposely misleading the House. However, I draw to his attention the fact that it was confirmed to me by Mr. Peter Crombie, Vice-President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that what the minister has just said is not according to fact.
I would ask the minister whether he is prepared to change the version of the story he has just told us, and whether he is prepared to admit to this House the fact that CMHC obtained details from the Department of Finance on the Monday before the budget, perhaps not all of them, but some which were in the budget pertaining to housing; that they gave this material immediately to Studio S&B in Montreal, where four or five employees of that particular organization were fully aware of budget provisions three days in advance, and subsequently, during that time, drew up the advertisement in question. Certainly he is incorrect in telling the House that the ad was only started after he heard what was in the budget during budget afternoon.
Will the minister admit that he has misinformed this House? If he has, will he resign and get out for someone who is competent?


Mr. Paproski:: Just tell the truth.

December 3, 1981
Oral Questions Mr. Nielsen: Stand clean.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I will stand by my previous answer today and on other occasions in this House. I would say to the hon. gentleman that the employee he is referring to, Mr. Crombie, was in a lockup prior to the budget and he was there until the normal time when the media and all authorized people in that lockup were released.
regulations by which the committee is bound. We want to decide whether we can do that kind of thing in a committee of the House of Commons. The members of that committee could look at the situation to see what they think of it, and perhaps make improvements, recommendations, etc., and I am willing to listen to them at any time.


REDUCTION IN INTEREST RATE PAYMENTS MADE BY FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. With the continuing deterioration of economic conditions for farmers across Canada, and with the net negative impact of the budget on agriculture, Canadian farmers are asking and wondering what the Minister of Agriculture has been doing for the last two years of Liberal government. The Minister of Agriculture has been hanging over both sides of the farm gate for some time on this issue and I think it is time to take a position. I would like to ask him whether at this time he supports the government's budget and, second, will he bring forward to the House the details, in general or in specifics, of the program he says he has in his back pocket now? When can farmers expect effective leadership from this minister and this government?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that the farmers who have taken advantage of the government's programs which have been presented by this government and this minister are not the ones he is talking about. The ones he is talking about are the ones whose leaders refused to enter into those programs, that is, those producers who are in dire straits at the present time and in need of help. There has been help provided in the budget for these farmers. Under the Small Business Development Bond, unincorporated farmers can borrow. There is no limitation on the amount of money banks can lend under that program.
Having regard to the other program he refers to on marketing, he knows full well that the leadership provided in his own area through the Ontario Cattlemen's Association, associated with the Canadian Cattlemen's Association, have a plan they want to discuss with their national organization before they present it to me. I think it is only fair that the one I have should wait until 1 see what they are going to present to me. We cannot continue to wait forever, and I agree with the hon. member on that. If they do not present something to us pretty soon we will present our plan to the hon. member and to everyone else who wants to see it.
The House of Commons committee on agriculture has asked that we have a meeting in camera. We are considering at the present time whether that could be within the rules and


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Canadian farmers know that before the budget the Minister of Agriculture left the impression in the agricultural community that he would resign if there was not any assistance forthcoming to farmers in the November 12 budget.
The Minister of Finance, in a previous answer to a question asked by my colleague from Quebec, mentioned that the budget reduced substantially the interest payments made by farmers through the Farm Credit Corporation. The minister should know that the reduction amounts to an average of $15 per farmer at a time when interest is amounting to about $7,000 on average. I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is satisfied with that figure. If he is not satisfied but remains in the cabinet and does not resign, he is then saying by implication that $15 per farmer in terms of assistance through the Farm Credit Corporation, which the Minister of Finance says is substantial, is satisfactory and he is happy with that. We know the minister is trying, but surely we can expect better results than $15 per farmer.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, this all depends on how the hon. member figured out the $15 per farmer. Those farmers will be able to obtain those loans at an interest rate of 11.75 per cent. They will be in a position to have a moratorium, if necessary, on those loans, etc., and that type of thing. In addition, hon. members always forget about how much money has been given to farmers interest free. Under the Wheat Board through advanced grain payments, the farmers have already received over $200 million interest free, and through advanced payments on other crops they will receive $136 million interest free. When they say we are doing nothing they are trying to get across the wrong impression. This government is doing more than any other government in all the world, in any free society that I can think of, for agricultural producers, and we have some of the best programs of all.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Because time is passing very rapidly and the proposed election in El Salvador is coming closer each day, I understand the
December 3, 1981

minister will soon meet with a representative of the Democratic Revolutionary Front, which I would say is the opposition in El Salvador. If that is true, will the minister please explain to the House what expectations he has for the possibility of a negotiated settlement in El Salvador at this meeting, and at the same time will he please explain what amendments he would like to see in the resolution now before the United Nations so that he could support that resolution?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman asks a number of questions. I am not sure I can answer them all very fully in one reply. I would say that we are hopeful we will have a reply from the El Salvador government to our demarche within a comparatively few days because, of course, we have suggested a process of meeting between the government and the FDR in El Salvador, and I have agreed to see representatives of the FDR at their request to discuss our demarche.
With respect to the vote in the United Nations, which I understand will take place this afternoon, the sponsors have shown themselves unwilling to accept any amendments. I do not anticipate that any will be made, and I do not anticipate that we will, therefore, support the motion.


FUTURE CANADIAN ACTION
Robert Joseph Ogle: Madam Speaker, I would just like to ask again what the minister would have wanted in an amendment that he could have supported and, second, will he be willing to work with those people who do support an amendment so that negotiations of some kind will occur?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, one of the most serious problems with the motion as it is presently posed is that it interferes with the domestic affairs of El Salvador. I can assure the hon. member, as I would assure hon. members at any time, that we will certainly be prepared to work with any parties in the search for peace in any part of the world.


THE BUDGET
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary and it is to the minister responsible for housing. The minister will know that Mr. Peter Crombie, the vice-president of CMHC, has told a member of this House of Commons that four or five people from a printing house in Montreal called S&B, were called in by the government before the budget and given information which subsequently appeared in the budget. I wonder if the minister will either confirm or deny that what Mr. Crombie said was the case?
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, from past experience regarding simple suggestions of conversations of members opposite with employees of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation or other people about protestations or allegations, I have found that at times they are less than factual, and I would be very reluctant to respond to such a question without having the particulars of it and having an opportunity of talking with those officers.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the minister earlier said categorically that only public servants had been involved in the reading or in the exposure of this budget information before the budget presentation. He said that categorically in this House. Now he is admitting he is not sure because he wants to check to see whether the four or five individuals from S&B were involved. Will the minister undertake to inquire today whether or not Mr. Peter Crombie made this statement that there were four or five representatives of S&B, not public servants, who were involved? Will he inquire whether those four or five people were sworn to secrecy, as outsiders were sworn to secrecy in the Walter Gordon budget, and will he then report to the House of Commons. And if, in fact, there was information made available to people who were not public servants, information which subsequently became part of the budget, will the minister agree to conduct a full parliamentary inquiry into all aspects of this matter?


An hon. Member:: Let the truth come out.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the answer is no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: A question of privilege, Madam Speaker. From the statements which this House has just heard, I have no alternative but to say that the minister has deliberately misled this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I must ask the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) to withdraw those words. As he knows, they are not accepted as parliamentary expressions and cannot be used lightly. I will ask the hon. member to withdraw those words.

December 3, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I would be very happy to withdraw the words if the minister would agree to have this matter referred to a committee-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -for a full investigation. If he is not afraid, if he has nothing to hide, then he will agree to do this. If he has something to hide, he will not agree. If he has nothing to hide he will stand up now and agree.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. However justified the complaint of the hon. member may be, the withdrawal of unparliamentary language must be unconditional. I think the hon. member will know that these are the rules by which we govern ourselves and I am sure he would be the first one to want to abide by those rules. So I would ask him not to put any condition on the withdrawal but to simply withdraw those words.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, with due respect to the Chair, I do not feel that I can go back on what I know to be the truth, having heard it from the vice-president of CMHC and others. Having sufficient evidence, I cannot stand up and say I was wrong in what I said, because if I believe in what I said I have to stand behind it.


Madam Speaker:: Then it is with great regret that I have to name the hon. member.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in the circumstances, I regret that I must move that the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Moved by Mr. Pinard, seconded by Mr. MacGuigan, that the member for Leeds-Grenville be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of today's sitting.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member who just made an argument ought to know that it has nothing to do with whether he was wrong or not wrong. These questions are debatable in the House. What is not acceptable are the unparliamentary words he used. What the hon. member has to do, and I am asking him to do this unconditionally and he knows the conditions under which I ask him to do this-is to withdraw the unparliamentary words he has just pronounced in the House. He does not have to say another member was right or that he did well or approved of his conduct. I am sure it was a slip of the tongue and the hon. member will want to withdraw those words.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I wish I could honestly say that it was a slip of the tongue, but I have to honestly say that it was not. I would be telling less than the truth if I contradicted myself in that regard. I do not feel, in view of all the things which have been said during the preceding week or two, both in the House and by the minister about what I said when he went to a fund-raising dinner in Toronto. I know the facts to be as they are. I cannot say otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Do I take it that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville does not want to withdraw the unparliamentary words he has pronounced in the House?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I can only say, Madam Speaker, that I feel I must let my words stand.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


WEEKLY STATEMENT
[Stage Direction]
Ferguson	Lapointe	PepinFisher	(Beauce)	PetersonFleming	LeBlanc	PinardFlis	Lefebvre	PortelanceFox	Lewycky	Prud'hommeGarant	Lonsdale	ReidGauthier	Lumley	(Kenora-Rainy River)Gendron	MacBain	RobertsGimai'el	MacEachen	RobinsonGingras	MacGuigan	(Burnaby)Guilbault	Mackasey	RobinsonHarquail	MacLaren	(Etobicoke-Lakeshore)Heap	MacLellan	RompkeyHenderson	Maltais	RooneyHerbert	Manly	RoseHervieux-Payette	Marceau	Rossi(Mrs.)	Mass6	RoyHopkins	Masters	SavardHudecki	McCauley	SchroderJohnston	McRae	SimmonsKaplan	Miller	SkellyKeeper	Mitchell	SmithKelly	(Mrs.)	TardifKillens (Mrs.)	Munro	TessierKristiansen	(Hamilton East)	TousignantLachance	Nystrom	TrudeauLajoie	Ogle	TurnerLalonde	Ostiguy	VeilletteLang	Ouellet	WatsonLaniel	Parent	WeatherheadLapointe	Pelletier	Whelan(Charlevoix)	Penner	YanakisAndre	NAYS Messrs. Gass	Young-134. McGrathBaker	Gilchrist	McKenzie(Nepean-Carleton)	Greenaway	McKinnonBeatty	Hamilton	McKnightBlenkarn	(Qu'Appelle-Moose	McLeanBosley	Mountain)	McMillanBradley	Hargrave	MitgesCardiff	Hawkes	MurtaCarney (Miss)	Hnatyshyn	NeilClark	Howie	Nielsen(Yellowhead)	Huntington	OberleClarke	Jarvis	Pa proski(Vancouver Quadra)	Jelinek	PattersonCook	Kempling	ReidCorbett	King	(St. Catharines)Crombie	Korchinski	SchellenbergerCrosby	Kushner	Scott(Halifax West)	Lambert	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Crouse	La Salle	SiddonDarling	Lewis	SpeyerDo mm	MacDonald	StevensEllis	(Miss)	TaylorElzinga	MacKay	ThomsonFennell	Mayer	TowersForres tall	McCain	WiseFriesen	McCuish	Wright-71.GambleMcDermid	[English]
Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion	carried.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I ask the government House leader to confirm the business for next week, assuming that tomorrow's allotted day has not changed.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, today we will deal with Bill C-48. We hope to give it third reading. Tomorrow will be effectively an allotted day.
[ Translation]
Regarding the business of the House for next week, Monday and Tuesday will be reserved for the budget, and the debate should be completed by Tuesday evening. Next Wednesday the House will consider Bill C-78, assuming that Bill C-48 will have been passed. Next Thursday will be the last opposition day of this supply period. Finally, next Friday I hope we shall be able to obtain the unanimous consent of the House to deal very quickly with Bill S-23 which has been passed by the Senate and concerns the Jules and Paul-Emile Leger Foundation.


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacKAY-REPLY OF MR. COSGROVE RESPECTING EVICTION OF FAMILIES
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a brief question of privilege which also involves the minister of housing. I should like to read a very brief portion of the question which the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) asked today. He said that he thought the House was entitled to an explanation for the evictions from the minister responsible for housing.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Might I ask the hon. member to let me know what is the question of privilege and, after that, he might read something in support of his question of privilege. But I should like to know from the outset what is his question of privilege.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the minister has left a very misleading and inaccurate impression with the House of Commons and its members with respect to the facts which existed when he referred to conditions mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East. I will be very brief, but I wish to set it out, if I may.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: The fact that the hon. member is not satisfied with an answer given by an hon. member does not constitute the basis of a question of privilege. The hon. member stated quite clearly that that was the basis of his question of privilege. I suppose he is now preparing to give me the facts with which he does not agree. Obviously that is
And Mr. Cossitt having withdrawn:

December 3, 1981
Business of the House
debate and not a question of privilege. Unless the hon. member has other things to tell me-and he has not told me in the first instance that there was foundation for a question of privilege-I will not be able to hear him.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, with all respect, I do not wish to be inflammatory but I regard it as a matter of personal privilege. Because what the minister said was not in accordance with the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I must have a moment to set this out; otherwise I cannot develop my question of privilege. Basically the minister said that myself, as former minister of housing, and our government were responsible for the eviction of the 80 families who were referred to earlier. The question my colleague asked was very simple. It is true, as the minister said, that we on this side of the House were responsible for the policies which he attributed to us, but certainly not for the eviction. This is stretching the truth-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is quite obviously debating. This is not a question of privilege. I understand that he might fully disagree with the minister and would like to debate the question, but this is not the time for it. There are other occasions in the House when he can debate such matters. I ask him to do it at that time. The hon. member does not have a question of privilege; I regret that I cannot accede to his request.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I should like to return for a moment to House business. We were interrupted by the question of privilege. I want to ask the government House leader and the House leader for the official opposition if it might be possible to schedule a meeting for next week in order to project what the House business will be between now and a point around December 18 to December 22.
I suggest to the government House leader that we did have certain pieces of legislation that we thought would be dealt with earlier but that have not yet been dealt with. It might be useful if we could get an idea of exactly what the government wants to go through the House before the Christmas break, regardless of how long that is.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall be pleased, as usual, to speak with my colleagues. It will be much easier to plan business for the following week when we have completed certain bills that have been under study for quite a long time. I intend to meet with my colleagues next week or, if necessary, before that, to plan even further.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I have a question on House business that I should like to direct to the President of the Privy Council. As he knows, for some time the government has been promising to bring forward Bill C-53 for second reading in this House. This legislation is long overdue and as the minister and the House know, it would redefine rape as a violent assault instead of a crime of passion. I should like to reaffirm the intention of this party to allow the bill to be referred to committee with no further speakers from this party in order that it may be considered and we may deal with the necessary amendments.
Is the President of the Privy Council prepared to bring this bill forward at the earliest possible opportunity in order that we may consider this badly needed legislation which was promised in the Speech from the Throne?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I said before, this bill is very important and we would like to send it to committee provided we can come to an agreement among all the parties. We are certainly prepared to send the bill to committee without any speaker at second reading stage, if that is the desire of the hon. member. Another party is involved, however, and I would be prepared to talk with that party in due time to see if it is ready to accept the offer made by the hon. member.
I have already stated what the business is to be for the remainder of this week and the whole of next week. Perhaps we could bring that bill in next Friday afternoon, if we get Bill S-23 through of which I spoke earlier. It may then not be necessary to call Bill C-53 next week if we agree before hand to send it to committee without further speakers. This party is prepared to let the bill to go to committee without any additional speakers.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, certainly we will await with interest the response of the other party on this side to that offer, which I readily accept. Another matter which was promised in the Speech from the Throne and on which I would like to get some clarification as to the government's timing on it was the transfer of the offence of possession of cannabis from the Narcotics Control Act to the Food and Drug Act. The government has promised for some time to make this long overdue legislative change. I would ask the President of the Privy Council to indicate where this matter stands on the parliamentary timetable.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to consult with the Minister of Justice and report to the hon. member, before Christmas, I hope.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, there is a purpose in having House leaders for the parties. The chief purpose of that arrangement is for members to work through their House leaders. I suggest that the hon. member, who in my view has been grandstanding, should work through his House leader, who made a very sensible suggestion today with respect to holding a House leaders' meeting at the earliest possible moment for the purpose of discussing the very thing that was
December 3, 1981

the subject matter of the exchange between the hon. member for Burnaby and the government House leader.
This kind of exchange between the hon. member, who is not his party's House leader, and the government House leader will add nothing to the harmony of the forthcoming House leaders' meetings. I can give an undertaking for this party that members will not undercut me and go directly to the government House leader. I would hope that the same kind of co-operative discipline could be encouraged in the NDP. Let us do our job in a very calm and sensible fashion, rather than try to make political points through exchanges such as that which just occurred.
If exchanges such as this one are to become an established practice, there is no way that I can ask my own members not to follow the same course of conduct. I am sure that all hon. members would agree it would not be conducive to the most efficient carriage of business in this House.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, it is always such a pleasure to hear from the official opposition's House leader. I should like to suggest, however, that he look after his business and I will look after mine.
I am quite satisfied that when one of my colleagues asks me if it would be proper for him to raise a matter, I have the authority to say yes or no, which I did. I shall continue to do that. If the House leader for the official opposition would like some lessons, I am available after six.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, through you, that I will have nothing to do with his business.


Mr. Friesen:: Madam Speaker, it is painfully obvious that it takes two of the NDP to do the job of one for any other party.


POINT OF ORDER
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I am a member of a minority group that remembers very well the way we were treated in World War II. That is why I am concerned about the cabinet document published on June 10 regarding civilian internment camps. It is for that reason that I put down a motion for the production of papers regarding that document. I am now told by one of the officials of the House that it will be months before the papers that will be necessary to debate that document will be translated. It was my impression that the facilities of this chamber are supposed to be bilingual. This is an emergency security document. I was under the impression that the document would be translated relatively simultaneously to its production and that we would therefore be able to debate the matter in the House.
Point of Order-Mr. Friesen
I should like to ask the government House leader whether it is going to be months before this document can be translated and when we will be able to debate that motion in the House. I am very concerned about the issue and I know that other hon. members are also concerned about the matter of civilian internment camps, in spite of the fact that we now have a so-called Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not know what documents the hon. member is referring to when he says that certain documents have yet to be translated, but as minister responsible for emergency measures planning, I can confirm that there is an order in council which has been published and which only contains instructions for departments, on how to plan for and cope with emergency situations, and these instructions cannot be implemented without an act of Parliament, which would be subject to a complete debate. So, if the hon. member is referring to an order in council, it has been published, and if he is afraid the order in council goes against civil rights and liberties, in that case it is a little early for him to entertain this fear, because the provisions will not become effective until a bill is debated in the House and receives complete and final approval. However, I can confirm that there are no plans to do so in the short term. So if that is what is causing his concern, there is absolutely nothing, to my knowledge, that justifies the anxieties of the hon. member. But in any case, I shall find out exactly to what document he is referring, and if there is a case for speeding up its translation, I shall be glad to take appropriate action.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, if the government House leader will check order in council 1305, an emergency planning order which calls for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to have authority to establish civilian internment camps, it is significant to note that the new document makes no mention of the RCMP or any other police force that would be used to authorize or to establish those internment camps. The order is supposedly a rewriting of the document of 1965, when the RCMP were used as the administrators of those camps.
I am concerned about this order. I wish to be able to debate it in the House. We are being stalled by the government because of its translation services. I would like to have an assurance from the government House leader that these documents will be translated forthwith so that we can debate that motion on the floor of the House.


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


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I must answer here, because it seems to me the hon. member is a little confused. He says he is concerned about the order in council, because in one part of

December 3, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Friesen
the order, instructions are given to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) for making certain arrangements and plans in the event of emergency situations. Once more, if the hon. member reads the entire order in council, which has been translated, is available and has been published, and which to my knowledge is the only document that deals with emergency planning, he will see that certain instructions are given to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) for planning and making preparations for assisting those who will need medical care in the case of a major disaster or crisis in this country. Such plans will become effective only if an act of Parliament is debated, and the hon. member will then have the debate he desires in the House, but he will have it only if we agree to introduce a bill. For the time being, we have no intention, in the short term, of introducing a bill to implement the plans contained in the order in council. If the hon. member wants to have a debate on emergency planning before the government decides to introduce a bill, I must remind him that there are opposition days when he may enter a private member's bill in his name on the Order Paper, and it will be debated in due course. But as far as the government is concerned, we do not intend to introduce a bill on emergency planning during this session. Furthermore, the order in council to which the hon. member is referring has no enabling authority. These are only instructions to ministers and respective departments, on planning in the event of a national emergency, whether it concerns the Solicitor General, public health, energy or any other area. This is what is known as sound planning. So I really wonder what the hon. member is complaining about. If there are other papers to which he is referring that have not been translated, I should appreciate it if he would give me a more specific reference, and I shall make arrangements to have them translated.


Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, just on the same point of order, there is quite a high degree of concern on the issue of Privy Council Order 1305 which was gazetted, I think, on May 21 of this year. It comes under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, I believe. I am wondering why that vehicle has been used to put the nation on notice that the RCMP have been removed as the operators of civilian internment camps. There is a high degree of concern about this in the country at large. Also, why has the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) been given new powers to rearrange prison populations to make room for civilian internees?
Also, I have not been able to get to the bottom of the confusion regarding this order in that outside the body of the text for the Solicitor General, "in the event of war" is contained in the heading. There is, again, some confusion in that under the new charter of rights, the War Measures Act and emergency planning powers are broadened, and a court, on black and white definition, could say, "Yes, you may invoke your existing emergency planning orders", and away you would go.
On the other hand, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has given a very deliberate and solid address on this issue that we have in our files. He has pointed out that even in the event of an emergency, without the legislation he is talking about, these planning orders would be invoked. Therefore, it would be of great assistance to many people in Canada at large and to some of us in the House if he could clarify just where this Privy Council Order 1305 stands.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I must reply regarding the hon. member's last statement. It is incorrect to say that this order in council will be implemented without a bill being passed. For the order in council to become effective, it is absolutely essential to have a bill or to have a debate in this Parliament pursuant to an existing act.
As the minister responsible for emergency planning, I can assure him that is true. The order in council is not brand new. It was substituted for a previous one, because it was felt that emergency planning should be adapted to present-day realities. Once more, these are instructions given to ministers to plan for emergency situations, so that all Canadians in all regions, at the federal level, will be better prepared in the event of a natural or man-made disaster or of civilian action prior to a war.
But, once more, and I want to make this quite clear, the order in council will not be implemented unless there is an act of Parliament following debate in this House. I hope I have been able to dispel any doubts in this respect. And as for its compatibility with the Charter of Rights, since the hon. member raised the question, I would like to say once again that these powers-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! Really, we are involved in a debate on an order in council! The hon. member asked a question about papers which, according to him, had not been translated, which fact prevented him from functioning in committee. The President of the Privy Council has answered that question. It seems to me that since then, there has been a debate on the merits of an order in council, and that a point of order or privilege is no longer involved. That being the case, I think enough has been said on the subject.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, in a sense, this is a new point of order because of the comments made by the government House leader who, indeed, is the minister responsible for emergency planning. I speak in the capacity of a member of the Senate and House of Commons Joint Standing Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments, which had the opportunity of reviewing this very unusual order, an order that came not by virtue of any legislation, but rather by the royal prerogative indigenous to government.
December 3, 1981

My colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), quite rightly points out the essence of his complaint, and one in which I join as a member of that committee and of this House of Commons, that this very unusual order which has been proclaimed by the government imposes sanctions against any public servant who refuses to carry out the instructions.
The point I am making is that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), in addressing the joint federal-provincial ministers with respect to emergency planning, indicated in his speech, which I can show to him, that there will be no alternative for the government in the event of an emergency but to act extra-legally, that is, outside of the law, if-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is not raising a point of order. He is debating the question again. This is not the time to debate that particular question. I cannot accept it under a point of order. There is no point of order that I can see. The hon. member has been speaking for three or four minutes and he has not raised a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: May I explain my point of order in just one sentence?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn).


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My point of order is that this is a highly unusual matter, and it is absolutely essential, considering its urgency, to have the document put before this House and the return presented. That is to say, I think there should be an undertaking by the President of the Privy Council, who misrepresented the position he took last summer, that the document will be provided immediately.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague from the Saskatchewan Small Claims Court is entirely mistaken. He is misinterpreting statements I have made. In any case, I have clarified them if that is how he understood some of the statements I made at the federal-provincial conference. I made it quite clear that the order in council cannot become effective unless a bill is debated in Parliament in this regard.


Madam Speaker:: That has already been said. Really, this is just further debate. Here we go again. I just said there was no point of order.
Petitions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition to the House on behalf of the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution signed by many Canadian men and women urging the removal of Section 33 of the constitutional resolution, which was passed by this House last night, which would allow an explicit override of the fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights in the Constitution. I can only hope that perhaps those members of the other place might have another look at this provision and delete this section, which so effectively guts the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I thank the Chair for recognizing the Leader of the Opposition to present a petition. I have the duty to present three petitions today on behalf of the residents of communities in Ontario.	<
The purpose of these petitions, signed in one case by 32 concerned Canadians from Welland, Ontario, in another case by another 31 citizens of Welland, Ontario, and in another case by some 130 citizens from Stoney Creek, Ontario, is to indicate to the government that the mortgage interest crisis that is forcing them out of their homes and into dire straits is continuing unabated despite the Liberal budget.
The nature of the petitions is to demand that the government lower interest rates and provide for deductibility of mortgage interest.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that as a result of the urgency of their request you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow for discussion of their concerns.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by members of the recently formed Prince Edward Island Home Owners' Association based in my riding of Hillsborough.
The petition laments that current high mortgage interest rates have placed home ownership beyond the reach of most Canadians. It notes that many Canadians faced with the renewal of mortgages at interest rates substantially higher than before risk losing their homes because they cannot afford the new payments. Specifically, the petitioners call upon Parliament to take all necessary measures to lower mortgage

December 3, 1981
Order Paper Questions
interest rates immediately to a level that will effectively deal with Canada's housing crisis.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, the petition includes a plea for help for those individuals and families who had to renew their mortgages in the last year when interest rates were at their peak.
I share the views of the P.E.I. Home Owners' Association, and it is on that basis that I beg leave to table this petition in the House on their behalf.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I also have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by several hundred home owners in the community of Powell River, British Columbia, who are currently suffering from health and financial problems associated with urea formaldehyde insulation in their homes. They present a request to the government to aid them financially to rid their homes of this material, and seek aid with testing and health information from the government.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra) moved: that the eleventh report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, presented to the House on Monday, November 23, 1981, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,640, 3,175, 3,265 and 3,305.


Mr. Anguish: 1.	Did the government retain or is it retaining the services of the hon. member for Vercheres in the settlement of native land entitlement claims and, if so (a) what is/was his role and title (b) what are/were his responsibilities (c) in what manner, under what authority and on what date was he appointed (d) does he
receive remuneration for his work and, if so, in what amount (e) does he receive expense money for his work and, if so, what amount did he receive?
2.	Did the member meet with groups to discuss the claims and, if so, which groups and what was the date and location of each meeting?
3.	Was the member permitted extra staff entitlement for his work and, if so, under what budget and how many persons were involved?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) The hon. member for Vercheres was named special representative for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for Saskatchewan Land Entitlements.
(b)	He co-ordinates and negotiates the resolution of Saskatchewan Land Entitlements.
(c)	Initial appointment by P.C. 1980-3282 of 4 December 1980, effective October 1, 1980-March 31, 1981. Appointment confirmed by P.C. 1981-1180 of 7 May, 1981, effective April 1, 1981-March 31, 1982.
(d)	No.
(e)	Mr. Loiselle's travelling expenses in relation to Saskatchewan Land Entitlement amounted to $3,068 in 1980-81. No travelling expenses have been paid in 1981-82.
2.	Yes. While parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, between March 4, 1980 and September 30, 1980, the following meetings took place:
Federation of Saskatchewan Indians
July 24-25, 1980; Saskatoon, Sask. Peter Ballantyne Band Sask.
The Hon. Ted Bowerman Sask.
After his appointment as special representative, he met with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians December 14-16, 1980, Regina, Sask. Numerous other meetings were held in Ottawa during 1981 with F.S.I. representatives and entitlement Bands, as well as representatives of other government departments.
3.	Departmental staff have supported Mr. Loiselle in carrying out his responsibilities.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,761 which stated in part that Mr. Tim Porteous was never an employee of the Public Service, what is a complete list of all the positions he held with any government agency, council, office or any other government body?
2.	Does the government, when answering questions on the Order Paper, interpret the words Public Service as literally as possible or does it realize that this term is often used to cover employment of any kind paid for from public funds, by exempt staff, or by Crown corporations?


David P. Smith: 1. The Canada Council advises as follows: 1966-68 executive assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
December 3, 1981

1968-73 special assistant and executive assistant to the Prime Minister.
1973 to now associate director of the Canada Council.
2. Ministers' staffs are not employees of the Public Service. Please refer to the Public Service Employment Act.


Mr. Nickerson: 1.	Does Statistics Canada, for the purpose of compiling statistics on weekly newspapers within a certain geographic region, select one newspaper as being representative of those published within that region and does it require the newspaper to provide more detailed information than others in the region?
2.	Has the Slave River Journal of Fort Smith, Northwest Territories been for several years the designated representative newspaper for the Northwest Territories or any part thereof?
3.	If a newspaper objects to being the designated representative newspaper in a region for what it regards as more than its fair share of time because of the additional paper burden placed upon it, can it take steps so that it no longer retains this honour and, if so, what are the steps?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	Statistics Canada for the purpose of compiling statistics on weekly newspapers for a province or territory does not select only one newspaper as being representative of that region. Neither does Statistics Canada require a newspaper to provide more detailed information than others that are in the same size stratum.
2.	The Slave River Journal at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories, has been part of a systematic sample of newspapers reporting to Statistics Canada but is not the only newspaper for the Northwest Territories included in the sample.
3.	Businesses are required to respond to surveys collected under the Statistics Act. However, small businesses, such as the Slave River Journal, wishing to be exempted from the burden of completing the annual census of manufactures may do so by facilitating access to data already supplied to Revenue Canada by providing Statistics Canada with the necessary identification tax numbers.
In the case of the inventory, shipments and orders survey, the sample is revised annually in accordance with the theoretical requirements of a stratified systematic random sample. The Slave River Journal, which for a number of years was part of the survey was not selected for the revised sample for 1982. But it is quite possible it will be reactivated on the next update cycle. In the case of sample surveys no exemptions can be granted.


Mr. Rae: 1.	Were separate contracts worth $3,600,000 awarded to Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada, Toronto and Canadian Bonded Credits Ltd., Don Mills?
2.	Were the contracts tendered and (a) if so, what were the competing bids (b) if not (i) for what reason (ii) on what basis were the companies chosen?
3.	(a) Who were the principal officers or owners of the companies (b) what services were required under the contracts?
Order Paper Questions
4.	(a) What kind of debts will be collected by the companies and from how many persons or companies (b) what amount is expected to be collected (c) what control will be exercised by the government over the tactics used by the companies?
5.	Is it the usual practice for the government to contract out work to collection agencies and, if so, for what reason are public employees not used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: In so
far as the Department of Supply and Services is concerned, 1. The following contracts were awarded:
Value	Name of Contractor
$ 4,800,000	FCA International Ltd.
3.600.000	Canadian Bonded Credits	Limited
3.600.000	Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada
2.	(a) Yes. Requests for proposals were invited from all firms (21) who had expressed an interest in this program. Bids were received from FCA International Ltd., Canadian Bonded Credits Limited, and Associates Credit Bureaus of Canada;
(b) (i) N/A;
(ii) The bids were evaluated by a joint DSS/Secretary of State committee utilizing predetermined evaluation criteria. The three bids were considered to be responsive and contracts for a portion of the business were awarded to each of the three firms.
3.	(a) The principal officers are:
FCA International Ltd. Canadian Bonded Credits
Associated Credit Bureaus of Canada
Name
Mr. J. D. Lubotta Mr. G. R. Stephens
Mr. A. Levitt Mrs. Ann Ruth Levitt Mr. R. Watters
Mr. K. Belgrave
Mr. D. Emberly
Title
President
Executive Vice-President
President
Director
Director
Vice-President and General Manager Chairman of the Board
(b) The firms are to provide collection agency services with regard to defaulted student loan accounts, including the tracing of delinquent borrowers.
4.	(a) The firms will collect outstanding student loans. From 1964 to June 30, 1980, some 85,000 students had defaulted on their loans for a total of $156.3 million.
(b)	Approximately $48 million by the three firms concerned, during the period August 1, 1981, to June 30, 1984.
(c)	The firms are required to furnish these services in accordance with the Canada Student Loans program directive to collection companies for the collection of delinquent Canada student loans. The Department of the Secretary of State, Student Assistance Directorate, is monitoring the services provided. It is a condition of the contracts that the services provided are subject to inspection and acceptance by the Crown.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
5.	These services have been contracted out for more than 12 years. The Department of the Secretary of State does not have sufficient person years to carry out such a program. Furthermore, it would be highly impractical and uneconomical to take on such a program on an in-house basis. The selected contractors provide Canadawide (and even worldwide) coverage which is not the case for the Department of the Secretary of State. Also, contrary to public servants, the contractors are not paid on a time rate basis but on a production basis. Treasury Board has directed that the business be spread competitively among several private sector firms.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes I have left to speak on the bill, having started my remarks yesterday, I would like to say that we are fortunate in the sense that the bill was delayed, as a result of the constitutional debate, for two reasons. First of all, it gave us the opportunity to measure some of the serious aspects of the bill against the new Constitution. We find after examination that there are some very serious flaws in the document with regard to the right to own property and the way native peoples in Canada lands will be treated when the decision is made to begin serious exploration and development in these Canada lands or in the north.
It is always interesting to speculate what people outside this chamber who are watching every move we make think about some of the matters we are discussing here. I cannot help but briefly review the discussions that took place just before 1 rose.
There is not anyone in the whole country who has followed with interest the debate leading to changes in our Constitution who did not hear someone say that never again will any
member of any ethnic group-and the reference was always made to Japanese Canadians who were incarcerated or interned in 1943 or periods during the Second World War-be subjected to that kind of treatment in our country once we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and a new Constitution.
I am sure there are probably thousands of people out there who must be confused, having heard the discussions that just went on here, to learn with alarm that we have a government which has passed an emergency planning order whereby the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) is compelled and ordered to establish civilian internment camps.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Frank Oberle: The truth always hurts, but I just cannot help myself-


An hon. Member:: You are going to put everybody in internment camps up in Uranium City.


Frank Oberle: My colleagues and friends in the House know, of course, of my ethnic background and the very deep emotional feelings I have with respect to this measure. I am sure there are many thousands of Canadians who are watching this procedure and must be alarmed by the prospect that this government could come into the House and say there is an emergency in the country-


Mr. MacLaren:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I know that we sometimes are fairly elastic in our view of relevancy in our discussions, but surely this exceeds even the most generous definition of elasticity. I do not know what civilian internment camps have to do with Bill C-48, the Canada oil and gas act.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: For the sake of the hon. member's understanding, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) did connect the two in terms of discussing Bill C-48. The Chair found that he was perhaps straying a little, but I felt it appropriate to give the hon. member an opportunity to close off the analogy and move on to Bill C-48.
Now that the point has been made, perhaps he would consider doing so.


Frank Oberle: As you well know, Mr. Speaker, I am usually the last one in the House to abuse the rules of the House, but I would have been remiss had I not made the reference.
There are certain aspects of Bill C-48 which are not at all unrelated to that kind of autocratic and Draconian measure. As I said in my remarks yesterday in leading up to this point, one of those aspects is the fact that this government-this again is a totally unprecedented act on behalf of any government in western democracies-under the powers which we are about to grant it under Bill C-48, will confiscate private property and private assets, either the intellectual type of
December 3, 1981

capital or actual physical assets which are associated with leases in the north.
With Bill C-48, the government will receive the power to go to Canada lands in the north or offshore and confiscate up to 25 per cent of the assets of any company that have not yet been developed in the sense of the issuance of a production certificate. If this is not an area in which we should be seriously concerned, I do not know whether we should ever concern ourselves with anything again.
We have had time to learn of the serious flaws in the bill as they affect domestic companies, the economy in general, and certainly as they affect the potential of becoming energy self-sufficient by the year 1990. We have also had time to reflect on and come to grips with some of the serious condemnation and concerns voiced to us from outside our country. This matter interests me particularly because, as I have said in committee and in the earlier part of the debate, I am very much concerned about the reaction that we are to expect from the United States as well as other countries as a result of what is now clearly causing serious damage to certain treaty obligations that we have with the OECD countries, with the government moving against companies and giving preferential treatment to its agents over foreign companies which may have been or are presently operating in Canada lands in the field of energy exploration and development.
It is a fact that the government has brought about this condemnation and we had better brace ourselves for some very serious action that some of these countries will feel obliged to take against us. I shudder to think what would happen if the United States government, in its wisdom, said that if that is the way Canada treats U.S. companies in Canada then it should reciprocate in kind and treat Canadian companies likewise in the United States. If this reciprocal action resulted in certain trade restrictions in the free flow of goods between our countries, I shudder to think of the prospect of restrictions on our lumber and wood fibre industries, for example, because the consequences would be very serious and the effect on our economy would be incalculable.
Bill C-48 has already had very serious effects on our domestic economy. The Petroleum Services Association of Canada recently appeared before a Senate committee and in graphic terms showed the senators the effect Bill C-48 has had on their businesses even before being passed through the House of Commons. The Petroleum Services Association consists of roughly 150 companies which represent a wide variety of activities generally servicing the oil patch and the oil fields. The association employs roughly 15,000 Canadians and is not at all an insignificant sector of our economy.
This particular service association recently conducted a survey and found that the number of employees on staff fell from 7,998 to 6,743. These particular companies which responded to the questionnaire, some 77 out of 150, registered a loss of employment of 1,255 people. The total number which left the industry had between them 4,914 years of experience.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The value of capital expenditures was cut back in Canada to the tune of $97,239,000. The gross sales over the period dropped by $131,639,000.
Bill C-48 was designed to bring about energy self-sufficiency by 1990. We all know that this would require a massive influx of capital, technology, people and a massive effort, almost an emergency and warlike effort, to move to the north and bring about new development and exploration to recapture what we once had, energy self-sufficiency.
I cannot believe at all that the minister should be so stubborn as not to realize what he is doing. Instead of increasing the activities in the north he is, of course, very seriously crippling the oil economy in the north. Also, he is not chasing the multinationals, they are already in the United States and all over the world; he is not chasing them out, he is chasing out Canadian companies.
I come from an area of British Columbia which is the only producing part of that province. The major share of fossil resources are located in the northeastern area of British Columbia. The oil exploration and development industry has been a very significant part of the economy of that part of the province. I would like the minister to share the picture we all had when he announced the great potential to regain energy self-sufficiency in Canada. We all shared in the excitement of that proposition. He set in motion events which he could not control because he did not believe that there were still people in this country who would respond to a challenge in the way that people in my part of the country would. He set in motion a massive effort for people to come to grips with this challenge and respond in a positive way so that British Columbia could participate in supplying its share of energy resources to meet the needs of Canadians.
The city of Fort St. George had roughly 20,000 people at that time. There were approximately 300 hotel and motel rooms in the city. Over a two-year period, in response to this great challenge, everyone got out and said that this is where the action is. There were roughly 23 drilling rigs; the number was increased to about 100 operating in the area. Private entrepreneurs responded by building hotels and within a two-year period, 1,000 hotel rooms were available. The capacity to accommodate people in hotels and motels increased from 300 to 1,000.
Likewise, young companies enticed to service the oil patch responded. They took incredible chances. They went to banks everywhere and borrowed, increased their capacity, bought trucks and equipment and machines shops, hired new people, built on to their shops and bought new tools and machinery to respond to this incredible challenge.
Then came Bill C-48 and the minister pulled the rug out from under this exciting venture. Today three major hotels, including a Holiday Inn in Fort St. John, are in receivership, and two of the major machine shops are shut down. In the area with the greatest potential in our country there is above average unemployment today.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
I just wanted to take these few minutes to serve notice on the minister that people who walk away from their businesses on which they have worked all their lives do not behave rationally. People have been fooled by the government which held out a great promise. These people believed in it for a short period of time. They made commitments on the basis of that promise. They do not act rationally when they feel the rug being pulled out from under them. I dare say the minister had better be careful, because if that situation exists in many other parts of this country-and I think it does-people will take measures which are not ordinary or rational. When I go home I get a feeling of anger and frustration which frightens me because I am called in by some of those oil businessmen who are now forced to dig up their roots, move down to the United States and take with them their equipment and their technology. Of course, they cannot take with them their people because the people would have difficulty getting immigration visas.
I just wanted to spill my heart out to my hon. colleagues. This is a serious situation. I am deeply troubled by it, and I plead with the government at this late date to come to its senses and to make whatever changes can still be made to this bill so that it is at least in some way conducive to the laudable goals and objectives we have set for ourselves, namely, to recapture energy self-sufficiency and to bring about a greater degree of Canadian ownership by 1990.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, 1 participated at the report stage of Bill C-48, and I am now taking the opportunity to address a few more remarks in perhaps a broader context. I will stay within the confines of the bill. I might wander a little, but I will rely on Your Honour to bring me back to reality.
Since becoming a member of the House of Commons I have had great opportunities to travel the Arctic quite widely. I took one very valuable trip up there with a group of colleagues. It was a formal trip. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) was the member in charge of that group. We travelled widely. We looked at the infrastructure of the transportation system the federal government had financed. I am speaking now of a trip back in 1974 or 1975. We had extensive meetings with the native peoples. We sat in their houses and talked out the communication problems and the other problems they had. We talked about federal government programs which had been delivered into the north for these people, and one of the things I found quite heart-rending was that a program would be in place, and two or three years later, just as the people were understanding the program, getting comfortable with it, starting to benefit from it or understanding what the original thrust of the government was, the program would be withdrawn and something new put in its place. I have never forgotten the frustration of the native people. They were wondering why there could not be a little continuity with some of the federal programs which were delivered into the north.
Back in the first half of the 1970s the federal government put millions of dollars into the infrastructure of the transportation system starting from Hay River and up through the Mackenzie Valley. It was all predicated on the explosion which
was going to start to take place in the Canada lands. At that time there were about 5 trillion cubic feet of gas locked in in the Mackenzie Delta. There was oil up in the Mackenzie Delta. Massive rigs and land fills were being constructed in the Beaufort. Tuktoyaktuk was starting to expand to get ready for Dome. It looked as though things were pretty bright indeed. There was also the Mackenzie Valley pipeline consortium. That pipeline was to move gas from the Prudhoe Bay fields. The consortium was seeking permission to run that transportation system across the north slope and down the Mackenzie Valley. The federal government had been putting in the transportation infrastructure with some foresight and some wisdom. It was quite impressive.
Also with foresight and wisdom the federal government put in vocational training schools in that area so that native people could be taught to repair diesel engines, to handle heavy equipment, and taught the semiskills and the skills that would be necessary.
One of the things the native people said repeatedly was that their only fear in all that was of hobnail boots trampling over their culture and through their villages. I think all the members who went up there-and I think three parties were represented on that trip-recognized it as being of paramount importance that the construction crews which would be going through the north should be kept isolated and that we would have to protect the culture and the families and the homes and townships in which the northern people lived. That does not mean to say that a highway had not been built. Inuvik attracted entrepreneurs. It was getting ready to be the hub and the distribution base for much of this activity, as were other centres down the Mackenzie Valley.
Then all of a sudden came the Berger report, and overnight all that planning, spending and infrastructure was stopped dead in the water.
Then I had the opportunity to return and travel up through the Mackenzie Valley and again over the high Arctic to meet the people and re-meet many of those I had the opportunity of meeting on the first trip. The devastation in Hay River was really heart-rending. Young native people who had been in the schools learning trades all of a sudden had their futures pulled out from under them. We keep hearing the words "We need an industrial strategy" and that only with forward planning will there be a future for a young person who wants to get out, get working and acquire a piece of property, a home or a van or truck. People with goals and people with jobs are, as a rule, very happy people.
I have said several times in the past-and I do not want to bore hon. members-that one of the tragedies of the Thirtieth Parliament was that we stopped dead the move toward the settlement of Indian land claims in the north by losing that $7.5 billion to $8 billion transportation project. We are now starting to see some rethinking on the part of the New Democratic Party. We have had our look, but we lost the opportunity to build that transportation system. Because it was not built, energy in the Prudhoe Bay field is being wasted because, through four stage pumps, gas coming up with the oil
December 3, 1981

is reversed back into the ground. That has been going on for years and years now, and that is a total waste of energy. It is really a crime, and not just against the United States; it is a crime against the world, which is becoming increasingly short of traditional fuels.
Had we proceeded with the Mackenzie Valley line at that time-for minimum megadollars-the United States could have been given a transportation system across Canada which would have left a taxation base behind in Canada and used our steel-making and pipe-making capacity to the full. It would have given us a new and vital transportation system. It would have created work again in the machine shops of Ontario and Quebec. We would have had almost a fully employed people from that period on. Politics interfered with that. Now that pipeline is something in a $24 billion to $30 billion package. The pre-build is going on in the west. The expense of the transportation system alone to get that Prudhoe Bay gas to the United States is horrendous. It has a tremendous inflationary impact. I am one who favoured the Mackenzie Valley line. I was very sorry and regretful to see what our failure to proceed with that project did to the native people and to the dreams and hopes of the people in the Mackenzie Valley.
I would like to come to the combination of the delay we have had to this period and the importation of foreign oil at world prices, getting into the struggle of the national energy policy through Bill C-48 which we are still debating in this House and which was interrupted by the constitutional debate and the constitutional accord with the first ministers.
We have been importing oil from abroad at a terrible cost to this country. There has been a great regional distortion in that the west, primarily the producing province of Alberta, in a two-year period delivered some $9.6 billion in compensation payments back into the system.
The last time I was up I was not allowed to place some statistics on the record. However, there was a feeling that there was a justification for drawing on money from the province of Alberta because the provinces of central Canada had paid more than world price for the early delivery of oil as the pipeline was being built from the western-producing areas. I now have the opportunity to finish that comment. In the years 1962 to 1972, the difference between imported world prices and the prices paid by Ontario consumers for western oil was $639 million. That was over ten years. In the short period of time that we got into these compensation payments after OPEC moved up, the province of Alberta delivered back $9.6 billion in compensation payments for our friends on the east coast.
One of the mistakes we made in the Thirtieth Parliament, and I do not know whether it was a mistake or political, was that we said we would tax oil because the generators in the Atlantic provinces were oil-fired. What we should have done, if we were going to be totally fair as a nation, is we should have taxed energy so that all provinces using hydroelectric energy, oil, gas, any form of energy, somehow or other par-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
ticipated in this equalization payment and this need to help the people of the Atlantic provinces who had entered heavily into oil-fired generation.
I have said, and I think with complete justification, that Bill C-48 and much of the constitutional debate has been a massive revenue grab of western and east coast resources. We have been very slow in this country moving to world oil prices. As a result, we have been very slow in moving to energy conservation. We have been very slow in moving to energy self-sufficiency.
Ottawa was addressing this problem in 1973. It established a national goal to be achieved before 1980. This is our ability to plan. In 1976 Ottawa scrapped the objective and replaced it with oil self-reliance, another study. In 1980 oil self-sufficiency was reinstated.
Our government saw the feasibility of achieving energy self-sufficiency by the year 1990, but it required an agreement with the producing provinces. That was almost in the palm of our hands. Now energy self-sufficiency has given way and is the third priority after Canadianization and revenue-sharing. That seems to be about the extent of Ottawa's ability to bring this nation to energy self-sufficiency.
In the five years between 1975 and 1980 the industry in the west contributed approximately $23 billion to federal and provincial treasuries in royalties and taxes. In addition, the oil industry contributed $24 billion to Canada's merchandise trade balance through exports of oil and gas. Then a mystery comes along. The poor people of Canada wonder whether there is a gas shortage.
Some years ago I started to read the bunk and propaganda that was beginning to come out. I felt I should reconsider the fact that I had a gas-heat installation in my business and a gas furnace in my house. I wondered whether I should start studying something that would give me continuity of energy. Lo and behold, just a couple of years later we found that we had more doggone gas locked in the ground, capped wells everywhere and cash flow pressures on the entrepreneurs and explorers.
With our energy nationalization and rush to corporate concentration in advance of the November 12 budget, we created some $17 billion of call-and-demand on our international reserves. It has put tremendous pressure on the Canadian dollar and thus is affecting the interest rates that are causing tragedies. It could trigger a domino effect across Canada and the United States if we do not get some discipline and order into our lives.
Unfortunately it has been a grab for revenue. Unfortunately, a political regime, a new economic order, has moved in and interfered with the opportunity we were given in the mid-seventies to be fully employed, to have that gift and heritage at large in Canada working so that we could make a positive donation to the world by withdrawing our demand for foreign energy resources. That is the tragedy.
There has been no excuse for this country not to have been fully employed and fully at work since the early mid-1970s.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
We had a pipeline to build from the north to south of the 49th. We had a Syncrude plant which was an engineering marvel. We had an engineering body in place composed of Canadian and foreign engineers who should have been phased into another tar sands plant so that we would not lose that tremendous ability we have in engineering design, management, trade skills, engineering skills and our transportation infrastructure. All of that could have been gently and easily rolled over and phased into a second tar sands plant. Did that happen? No.
I remember when Sun Life nearly went bankrupt because of early pioneering work in the great Canadian tar sands. I remember the engineering tragedies it had, the metallurgical and other problems such as temperature and breaking up the tar sands. I remember the diggers breaking down and the belts breaking. I remember the struggles they had with the technology for separating the oil from the sand and then having to rebuild and redress the land as these great mining operations took place. I remember the negative cash flows they kept reporting. I remember years ago the seriousness of all this pioneering, this front-end entrepreneurial and innovative investment in rather large dollars. What does the national energy policy do, Mr. Speaker? It penalizes this company for that forward-looking investment into the future that was so necessary for us to become energy self-sufficient as a nation.
Why do we do these things, Mr. Speaker? We should be looking for national revenue as a good, solid taxation base where the decision-making process is at large in the country, using all of the talents that the magic of creation can give us. There is no decision-making base in Ottawa. The bureaucrats prepare laborious papers on the various options available to ministers to make decisions.
Today small companies throughout western Canada have to receive permission from some desk in IT&C in order to have an assessment for duty and tax and conform to all the other regulations to proceed with something that yesterday they used to be able to proceed with by picking up the telephone, having an expert assess the rules & regulations and then have a customs broker say that their interpretation is correct. If there was some doubt, the customs broker would telephone them in Ottawa so as to receive a ruling from the department. In a matter of hours, days, or weeks at the most, one could start the project; thereby the cash flow that small business always loses would turn around. That is the way it used to work.
I know of one company that last April needed about five or six items assessed for the duty rate or to see whether duty was applicable. It is a simple matter. They could then give that assessment, the professionals in the brokerage industry could assess it, and the company could start to move into the market again, in an area where it is all imports anyway-no Canadian manufacturing. The original request was made in April, and as of December 3, 1981, that single desk in IT & C has not been able to deliver its decision to the company in Vancouver. One thing after another is slowly coming to a halt as we force more
and move structuring on the economy and force the private sector to come back here for permission to blow its nose.
That is the cause of almost one million unemployed in the country. The government has taken all of the ability to make decisions away from the private sector.
Aside from Bill C-48, the national energy policy, we come to the day of the budget, November 12, 1981. When one considers what the government has done with the budget, coupled with the national energy policy of this government, things will grind to a complete halt. On November 12, the government pulled the cornerstone from under fair taxation policy. The first indication of retroactivity applied to the Canadian people was in Bill C-48. On November 12 the budget imposed retroactivity as a Liberal government policy upon the industrial, the job-creating and wealth-creating sector of Canada. When one has retroactivity in taxation policy, coupled with government policies that remove the ability to pay the tax, what one has done, in fact, is pulled out from under the private sector their decision-making base.
In 1971 a new taxation policy, the Carter principles, were introduced to this country-a buck was a buck. The market sector has been adjusting to that taxation philosophy for ten years. Most people were just becoming comfortable with the new rules. A decision-making base was in place. The game was starting to work. All it needed was some fiscal policy to lighten it up and some common sense planning in energy for it to proceed.
What happened? On November 12, the most infamous budget ever was introduced to the House. It applies retroactivity as a policy of this government, and at the same time it taxes wealth, leaving the taxpayer without ability to pay. That just furthers the confiscation aspect that is so evident in the national energy policy under Bill C-48.
There have been some wonderful speeches made by prominent industrialists. In a meeting some time ago I learned-and it had not occurred to me-that the major oil finds in Canada had been discovered by one company. It is interesting to note-and I am speaking of the new deep field under Pembina, as well as the Hibernia field out on the ocean bottom-that one company with its scientists and its expertise was able to put together software programs in seismology that allowed a new sensitivity and a new reading from that data. That is what enabled the discovery of a new, big find in Alberta, under traditional fields, and that is what gave us Hibernia.
That is a foreign company that has been a good corporate citizen of Canada for many years. That was a technology that was not developed in Canada but was developed offshore. They just happened to put the combination of minds together so as to provide this technology to enable these new, big finds to be made.
It is interesting to note that they are still at work. They still seem to be interested in new properties as a result of this lead they have in seismic technology. They are interested in starting exploration and drilling off British Columbia. However, there is a moratorium in place, further evidence of the federal
December 3, 1981

government and provincial government being unable to resolve problems that would provide jobs.
Exploration activity is important to the north coast of British Columbia. There are towns waiting to be the service and distribution outlets for the boats that service these offshore rigs. All of that is in place; the play is starting to take place; the land is under option. Everything is waiting for the federal and provincial government to get together and stop the moratorium so as to allow some of this west coast exploration to proceed.
The point I am making is that the official policy of this government is totally negative with regard to implementing forces that will allow us to achieve energy self-sufficiency. We shake our heads and wonder why we have the government wanting to move in and do everything; we have the government moving in and wanting to take over retroactively; we have the government not wanting to put up the front-end risk money within the Canada lands for gas and oil finds. But when there is a positive find, it moves in and takes 25 per cent.
With regard to that issue, I should like to discuss the problem that the industry is still encountering as a result of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) dealing with the producing provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan. We have read quite a bit about the success of finally reaching agreement with the province of Alberta, with the province of British Columbia and with the province of Saskatchewan. Politicians came to these agreements in spite of the fact that industry representatives kept saying, "Look, guys, you are taking too much in this money grab; you are not leaving us enough to operate or to risk a dime".
May I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis)-Corporate Affairs-Export Finance Corporation of Canada; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan)- Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements-Application of new formula to have-not provinces; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-The Budget-Effect on insurance policies and retirement savings plans.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
Point of Order-Mr. Herbert
Order Paper, namely notices of motions for papers, private bills and public bills.
Does the House agree to stand all items under the heading of notices of motions for papers?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to the consideration of public bills of which I have a startling number.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which I brought forward on a couple of previous occasions. If all goes as projected one of my bills may be called; if the opposition is concerned, I will be using my own time. The point I have raised before is that presently a lot of bills are listed on the Order Paper and marked as "Text received". In other words, these bills have not been printed.
Earlier in this session, as well as in previous sessions of Parliament, I have raised the point that when bills are listed but not printed, it is very difficult for the hon. member to do his work. If he is questioned on listed bills by the public, he is unable to respond, not having seen the bills in question. I pursued this matter again in the present session, and it was agreed that hon. members would be allowed a certain time in which to put their houses in order. After a certain period of time those members who had not produced any text saw their bills dropped from the Order Paper. However, those bills of hon. members who had produced texts within the time limit specified by the Chair remained on the Order Paper.
The problem we are facing now is that since the listing nothing further has happened. The bills still remain on the Order Paper, and beneath them it reads "Text received". This may be because the text received was not in good order for printing or the legal advisers of the Chair have been unable to put the material into proper form for printing. But for a multitude of reasons, the bills themselves are not available to hon. members at large.
When I brought forward this matter before, I followed it up with a letter to the Speaker. I received a response from Madam Speaker-I do not have the letter in front of me but I will try to state fairly her decision-in which she essentially decided that the matter rested with hon. members. If we do not regulate the problem, we could see considerable abuse in the next session; this is what really bothers me. Originally I suggested that I have perhaps 100 or so subjects which I

December 3, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Herbert
should like to pursue. I could do so very easily by having them listed as bills, and the titles would convey a certain representation in themselves.
Under the new arrangements of this session, presumably within a limited period of time I would have to produce some sort of text. Nevertheless, this would not be particularly difficult. However, I suggest that the text I would produce would not necessarily result in the law officers who advise the Chair being able to produce a printed version. Although the Chair may have made some attempt to throw this matter back to hon. members to regulate, surely the good order of the House is that it is the responsibility of the Chair. Unless something is done about this item, I see the possibility of considerable misuse in the next session.
Probably Mr. Speaker is not willing to make any further comments this afternoon. I know another Speaker occupied the chair when I brought forward the matter previously. I felt it was appropriate to bring it up today because, in my opinion, it has not been satisfactorily attended to. Furthermore, if it is to be my time which is used up, obviously it is better to bring it forward today than on another occasion.
I suggest Mr. Speaker give further consideration to the matter. There has been no ruling so far by the Chair on this item. Despite Madam Speaker's letter, Mr. Speaker might think of some manner in which the problem could be resolved to prevent the abuse which could result if no further ruling comes from the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member for bringing the matter to the attention of this particular occupant of the Chair. It was I who, approximately a year ago, undertook to assist the hon. member in this regard. My recollection is that there was some success in asking hon. members to produce texts for bills, not just names or titles of bills. If I recall correctly, we provided a warning period of approximately 30 or 60 days so that bills which had no body but had titles were removed from the Order Paper.
I understand the hon. member's point. I thank him for giving me some notice of his point of order. As I understand the issue, on short notice, it may be an extraordinary job to take several hundred bills with partial or total contents and verify that they are complete, orderly, meet the standards of the parliamentary law counsel, and translate them. The hon. member made a valid point when he said that the situation left the matter subject to abuse.
What concerns me more is that a very important right of every hon. member of Parliament is the right to seek to put a private member's bill before the House. Unless that effort results in the printing of the private member's bill, in effect the hon. member is deprived of a considerable portion of his rights as a Member of Parliament. I do not want to turn it into a question of privilege, but I think the hon. member for Vau-dreuil (Mr. Herbert) has a valid point. If a member deposits a bill but for some reason it cannot be printed and circulated, surely a very important part of the process of Parliament has
been denied to the member, as well as to other members who may appreciate the points made in the bill.
I will undertake to look once again at the subject matter, having due regard for the letter from Madam Speaker to which the hon. member referred. Bearing that in mind, this may well explain why, as I indicated earlier, I have before me a startling number of private members' public bills. Rather than try to refer to each and every one of them, and having given consideration to the comments of the hon. member for Vaudreuil, may I ask if there is unanimous consent that all orders preceding No. 139 be allowed to stand. Also I should point out that No. 139 stands in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil. Therefore, shall all orders preceding No. 139 stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Harold Thomas Herbert: that Bill C-339, respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not too sure what gets printed for the heading of the remarks I am about to make so I shall read from the bill. Clause 1 reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other act, the Crown corporations specified in Schedule D of the Financial Administration Act are not agents of Her Majesty.
The explanatory note which accompanies the bill reads as follows:
The purpose of this bill is to put Crown corporations on the same level as private companies, to render Crown corporations subject to private law and to take away their privileges under public law.
Crown agencies are distinct entities established as instruments of public policy that have been directly delegated by Parliament, the government or another Crown agency, to specify continuing responsibilities and the decision-making powers that assure them a degree of autonomy from Parliament and the government in pursuit of their tasks.
The responsibilities are assigned to the agencies, not to ministers. Ministers must account to Parliament for the exercise of continuing responsibilities and managerial powers. The extensive and increasing resort to Crown agencies has revealed serious deficiencies in the system which, if left unattended, will only add to the existing state of confusion concerning the status and accountability of a large number of Crown agencies which now comprise virtually a second public service.
It is coincidental that in the response to a question on yesterday's Order Paper concerning Crown corporations, reference was made to an answer received in November, 1980, concerning the number of Crown corporations. I found it an interesting comparison to the number of Crown corporations
December 3, 1981

that had been listed in a rather lengthy study called the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, or what is commonly known as the Lambert report. In 1979 the Lambert commission came to a conclusion about the number of Crown corporations. At about the same time an answer given by the government to a member's question showed that there was a discrepancy of approximately 40 between the high and the low. The high figure given in October, 1980, was 464 Crown corporations.
The regimes of accountability are tied primarily to financial management arrangements, while larger issues of accountability to Parliament for mandate and to the government for policy have not been adequately covered. This inadequacy for accountability will result in some decline in confidence in the Crown agency as a valid instrument for the implementation of public policy objectives.
According to the Lambert report, as of January, 1979, the official count was 429. As I mentioned earlier, just a few months later we were given a response by the government that the count was 464. I suppose there is some logical reason for this difference of 35 Crown agencies. I recognize the problems as many of the Crown agencies are dormant subsidiaries.
The first group of Crown agencies includes regulatory agencies, administrative or deciding tribunals, temporary bodies such as royal commissions and operating agencies like the National Film Board and central agencies. Departmental Crown corporations encompass such different entities as advisory and granting councils like the Medical Research Council, and regulatory agencies such as the Atomic Energy Control Board. Wholly-owned Crown corporations with varying degrees of commercial orientation and financial self-sufficiency include marketing agencies, such as the Canadian Saltfish Corporation, a number of corporations conducting business for the government, such as Defence Construction (1951) Limited, and a smaller number operating in a wider market like Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. The 21 proprietary corporations are mainly engaged in commercial operations, for example, Air Canada and VIA Rail Canada Inc. But they also include financial guarantee and insurance concerns like the Export Development Corporation and the Farm Credit Corporation.
Other government corporations seem to have few common characteristics other than the fact that they have been purchased, created, or sponsored by the federal government, and range from the Bank of Canada through de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited and the Standards Council of Canada, to the Belleville Harbour Commission.
Under the heading "Mixed Enterprise Corporations" are listed 24 enterprises, ranging from the Canada Development Corporation to the Blue Water Bridge Authority. These are share capital corporations owned or controlled jointly by the federal government and other governments, organizations, or individuals.
I should like to quote from page 279 of the Lambert report where the following passage occurs:
Crown Corporations
It is simply not possible to rely on the present schedules to the Financial Administration Act, which cover such a small number of the agencies and where the criteria for classification are minimal and inconsistently applied.
I should also like to put on record one of the recommendations contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability which appears on page 289 of the report and reads as follows:
16.1 the Schedules to the Financial Administration Act be replaced by a more comprehensive set of schedules in accordance with four categories:
(1)	Ministerial and other designated departments
(2)	Independent deciding and advisory bodies
(3)	Crown corporations
(4)	Shared enterprises
and that when any re-scheduling occurs such decisions be tabled for the information of Parliament.
The Financial Administration Act of 1951 established a general framework for the government, Parliament, and almost the entire spectrum of Crown agencies with respect to financial management and reporting. A change since 1951, as a result of the growth in the number of Crown agencies and the failure to include them in the schedules, is the weakening of the Financial Admnistration Act as the cornerstone of the management and accountability relationships among Parliament, the government and the semi-autonomous agencies.
Since 1951, a large number of government corporations, such as the Canada Development Corporation, the Canada Council and de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited have been created or acquired without being scheduled under the FAA. As a result, provisions for their accountability to the Crown are essentially idiosyncratic, founded either on the provisions of their particular constituent acts or on the powers available to the Crown under the general corporation law under which they were incorporated.
The management and accountability relationships of agency and proprietary Crown corporations to the government and Parliament are largely founded on the financial control provisions of the FAA. These include government power to approve annual capital and, for agency corporations, operating budgets and resulting contracts and major expenditures. For the Crown corporations which operate under schedules C and D, the minister would appear to have the power to issue policy directives in the form of unanimous shareholder agreements. These corporations include Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, Loto Canada Incorporated, Eldorado Nuclear Limited and the Northern Transportation Company Limited.
The government readily admits that it does not have the capacity to give policy direction to Crown corporations. Public sector boards must reconcile themselves to some continuing surveillance and controls. It is in this light, I believe, that the following recommendation has been made concerning the Crown agencies that the Lambert commission has named. Recommendation 18.12 of the Lambert report reads as follows:
The annual reports... be automatically and permanently referred to the appropriate standing committees of the House of Commons, and that they

December 3, 1981
Crown Corporations
provide a thorough description of the activities of the preceding year including both achievements and problems, a record of reports issued and directives received, and plans for the coming year.
The managerial requirement for insulation from the political process can, at times, be in conflict with the need to be responsive to the national interests as determined by the government. Although it may be somewhat tiresome so to do, I feel that in conclusion I must read yet another recommendation found in the Lambert report. Recommendation 19.21 reads as follows:
-the designated minister be required to undertake a review of the mandate and operations of Crown corporations not less than once every ten years and further that the results of such reviews be tabled in Parliament and referred automatically for study and appropriate action to the relevant standing committee.
Obviously, the point is that at the moment we have some difficulty and conflict between the assumed independence of many of the Crown corporations and the fact that they are operating with some policy directions from ministers or from the government. We have some difficulty, as Members of Parliament, in adequately questioning and receiving reports from these various Crown corporations. We sometimes get an attitude, if they do appear in committee, that they are independent, either of the government or of Parliament. It is sometimes very difficult for us to impress upon these same Crown corporations that they owe their lives to this Parliament. In fact, the continuing operation of many which receive moneys in the estimates each year is conditional on approval of the estimates.
We made this point somewhat forcefully a few years ago when we were having difficulty with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. We tried to indicate to the corporation that the public had a right to know what was going on within the corporation, since the public purse was financing the operation to the extent of almost $400 million at that time. As to today, of course, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation uses up approximately $600 million from the public purse.
We took a rather unusual step, back in those days, in illustrating that while we perhaps did not have any specific lines of reporting to hon. members, we had one ultimate weapon. That, of course, was to cut their budget. This we did, with some success, back in 1973 when we were operating a minority government. It caused quite a stir at the time, and this point is obvious to everyone, because even though the government's estimates are listed in the name of a Crown corporation, any cut in the moneys which is assumed to flow to a Crown corporation would be a cut in the government's estimates. However, the point was made. The point, of course, is simply that many Crown corporations owe their continuing existence to the moneys which they receive through the estimates. In that respect, I suppose Members of Parliament can exercise some measure of control. However, this is a rather indirect and, I think, unwieldy type of weapon. I believe the minister has given some indication that he intends to introduce a bill at an early date which would change the reporting responsibilities of the Crown corporations.
For what it is worth, during my last remaining couple of minutes I would express my personal opinion that if the Crown
corporations are to be executing the policies of the government, then the government should be directly responsible for the operation of the Crown corporations. That is a personal point of view. I doubt that that point of view will get very much support. However, I feel very strongly that if the government is responsible for the financing, if the government must answer for the hundreds of millions of dollars that are transferred to the Crown corporations every year, and if the government is to answer in this House for the method and manner of operation of the Crown corporations, then the best way to resolve the difficulty is to ensure that the government also exercise control over the operation of the Crown corporations. In that way we would get rid of any difficulty that anyone might have, and we would not have the conflict of interest which exists at the present time.
I guess that I am dreaming, but that is the way I would like to see it. I would like to see the government take over the responsibility entirely. However, if it is not to be that way, and I presume that arguments will be produced to illustrate why it cannot be that way, then we must at least see a better reporting responsibility to Parliament so that the hon. members themselves will be able to ensure that the moneys which are being spent by the Crown corporations are being wisely spent in the interest of the general public.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak on Bill C-339 this afternoon. However, I was so moved by the cogency of the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that I thought I might contribute a few comments and lend some support to his bill.
I must confess that when I first looked at Bill C-339, and especially when I read the explanatory notes, I had a sharp reaction. I would like to read the explanatory notes which state:
The purpose of this bill is to put Crown corporations on the same level as private companies, to render Crown corporations subject to private law and to take away their privileges under public law.
My knee-jerk response was that this legislation was a poorly disguised effort by the sponsoring member to knock Crown corporations per se. After listening to the hon. member for Vaudreuil, it was clear to me, however, that that was not the motivation behind the bill, and I welcome the fact.
There is a habit in this House, and I think across the land, to knock Crown corporations, to view them, a priori, as somehow antagonistic to the public interest. They are viewed at worst as monsters, at best as an unnecessary drain on the public purse. Often in that connection the point is made that Crown corporations are unwieldy, are the victims of elephantiasis, are unaccountable to Parliament and to the public, and are in many ways less satisfactory as an instrument of public policy than are, say, government line departments. I would be the first to admit that many in my own party hold such views.
Sometimes the views I have described or summarized are accurate; and all of us can think of some corporations to which
December 3, 1981

these descriptions might apply. Certainly there are inefficiently operated Crown corporations in Canada, as there are in any democratic society.
1 would argue, though, that on the whole Crown corporations are an effective instrument of public policy. Some perform very useful functions. In fact, often the functions they perform could only be fulfilled by Crown corporations, or they could be performed best or most effectively by Crown corporations rather than directly by a department of the federal government or the private sector.
Crown corporations are set up because there is the need to have from time to time an arm's length relationship between certain government agencies and politicians so as to avoid interference, to give the agencies an element of freedom, to allow them to pursue a course without day-to-day interference by bureaucrats-and I use that word in the best sense of the word-by politicians or, for that matter, by the public or the media. That is why the CBC, Canadian National Railways and many others were established as Crown corporations: to give them a degree of independence from bureaucratic, public or governmental interference.
I take considerable pride in the fact that it was a Conservative government which fathered a number of our great Crown corporations. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a case in point. Canadian National and the National Film Board and others could also be mentioned.
All of us now and then have problems with the CBC or with Canadian National or with any of a number of others. We complain, strongly and legitimately so, about how they do this or that or do not do this or that. But most of us, I think, would admit that these corporations perform most useful functions that could not be performed nearly as well if they were directly under the thumb of a government minister, of a department, of Parliament or, again, for that matter, of the public.
The railway system in Canada-and I am thinking now of the Canadian National Railway system, rather than of the Canadian Pacific-forged a country out of a vast and thinly populated land. It literally helped Canada become a unified country, from one coast to the other. If the railway had been left entirely to private enterprise, the job would never have been accomplished. In fact, as we all know, most of the component parts that led to the formation of the Canadian National Railways system were once in private hands. Private interests just did not perform the job that needed to be done. The government had to grab the bull by the horns, take the initiative, bring these component parts together, and out of them form a state corporation, if you will, on the basis of which we forged a country out of, as I say, a diverse and thinly populated land.
The CBC is another case in point. Just as the railway brought Canada together geographically, so also did the CBC bring Canada together culturally. To repeat, while we have problems with the CBC-especially when we politicians do not make the national news at night, or for whatever reason; allowing for such possibilities and setting them aside-we must recognize that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Crown Corporations
does a darn fine job in this country. Those of us who knock it do so outrageously unaware of the facts.
Having expressed the importance in principle of Crown corporations as vehicles for national policy, I hasten to add that we have allowed some of these corporations to get out of hand, often wildly. There may well be, as the hon. member for Vaudreuil has pointed out, too many Crown corporations. I suspect that is the case when the government is unable to answer the simple question, "How many corporations does the federal government own?" We have probably reached the point where there are too many. That question was actually put to the responsible minister at a meeting of a standing committee of the House. But the minister could not tell the questioner, a member of the House, how many Crown corporations within a hundred were responsible to Parliament.
Crown corporations have been permitted to become unwieldy, to become gross, much larger in size and much better endowed in funding than needed to be the case given the job at hand. I share with the hon. member for Vaudreuil his concerns about some Crown corporations' lack of responsiveness, of accountability to Parliament and to the public, and of manageability. And I share his concern also about their sheer ineffectiveness in getting the job done that they were set up to do. Many of the points he made, are, in my mind, valid and are ones with which most of us in the House could agree.
Yet, to stress once again the importance of Crown corporations, let me express some real, fundamental, and genuine personal fears about Crown corporations in Canada. The first is that I think too many of them are concentrated in central Canada. I am talking now primarily about the headquarters of Crown corporations. For the life of me, I cannot understand why, by definition, Crown corporations, government departments, agencies, commissions, boards, or what have you, have to be located in almost every instance in central Canada, often in Ottawa; if not in Ottawa then in Toronto or Montreal, but still in central Canada in any event.
To my mind, we in Parliament should pursue, as a matter of public policy, the objective of spreading the industrial benefits of government as widely as possible across this great dominion. Crown corporations, or government in any form, are as much an industry as General Motors, Chrysler, Ford or General Foods. They generate salaries and, in turn, those salaries have a rippling effect throughout the economy. Every community that is directly touched by a Crown corporation benefits.
Why should Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal-central Canada, in general-be the exclusive beneficiaries of the direct presence of government? When a Crown corporation is headquartered in Montreal or Toronto, for example, its purchasing is automatically done in the community in which it is located. If we located the headquarters or main arms of Crown corporations in areas other than just central Canada, that would benefit all the communities concerned and, I suggest, the country as a whole.

December 3, 1981
Crown Corporations
Apart from the economic dimension, another reason to spread Crown corporations across the country is that government, in whatever form, should be as close as possible to the people it is intended to serve. Not every Canadian lives in central Canada. Prince Edward Islanders, myself included, are Canadians every bit as much as Ontarians and Quebecers. We have a right to be directly served by Canada's Crown corporations and by other agencies of government through having the instruments of the state located as close as possible to us.
I do not expect every Crown corporation to be moved to our tiny province. Maybe none of them could be. But, certainly, the region of which we are a part is entitled to be considered a suitable setting for some Crown corporations. It is important that government, in every way, be geographically near the people it must serve. In short, we want a piece of the action and, as Canadians, I think we are entitled to it.
A disproportionate number of major Crown corporations is currently headquartered in Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal-in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. If Crown corporations must be housed in central Canada, I would feel much better if northern Ontario, for example, were considered, and not always Toronto or southern Ontario in general. Northern Quebec should also be considered. It is not out of the question. There is nothing etched in stone which says that a Crown corporation is necessarily inefficient or ineffective because it is headquartered somewhere other than in big metropolitan areas of Canada. It is now possible, with modern communications and technology, with computer systems and other modern methods available, to harness a nation, to have government spread out in a way which perhaps was not possible when most Crown corporations were established in their current locations.
The second and final point which causes me great concern is that, to the extent that Crown corporations have any presence in what is sometimes disparagingly called the hinterlands or the periphery of the country, many of them are steadily withdrawing direct services from those parts of the country.
We are all familiar, for example, with the VIA Rail question, which has been well debated already in the House; so, the facts are widely known. But suffice it to say that in my province of Prince Edward Island, for example, there has been a steady withdrawal of Canadian National. I think that fact has profound implications not just economically or in terms of transportation but also in terms of the visibility of the federal government on the Island. The same is true of the whole Atlantic region and of many parts of western Canada. To use Prince Edward Island as an example again, we first lost direct passenger service on Prince Edward Island in 1969. We later lost a major part of the Carload Centre, which is the main office for the administration of the movement of heavy freight to and from the province and within it. Canadian National then took away the main part of the Car Repair shop, where rail cars are repaired and maintained, both on a routine and emergency basis. Lately we lost half of the Canadian National Express office. The VIA Rail cutbacks were but another step-and probably not the last one-toward the total elimination of Canadian National's presence on Prince Edward
Island. If Canadian National is to be withdrawn completely from our province, ignoring the resultant economic and transportation and service disadvantages, just consider the impact on the psyche of the people there. They will see something of their national government removed from them at the very time when that same part of government, CN, is being aggrandized elsewhere in the country.
I think it is important that Air Canada, the CBC, CN and all other Crown corporations have a strong and visible presence in every part of Canada. The more their presence is chipped away in certain parts of the country, the more Canada itself is withdrawn, in a very tangible fashion, from the citizens affected.
Concerning the Atlantic provinces, there has been a propensity-almost an obsession-on the part of the federal government to consolidate the provision of its services either in the heartland of the country, the major metropolitan areas- including Vancouver, for that matter-or in major centres within the outlying regions, to the exclusion of places like Charlottetown and similar smaller centres. I believe this is bad for national unity. It could be demonstrated-but it would take more time than I have available-how harmful to national unity that practice is. It is also bad in terms of sound management. And, most important, it is bad because it is one step farther on a course which will alienate Canadians from one another and pit one region of Canada against another. I think we can be administratively efficient, rational and effective in government without resorting in every instance to bigness-to what I call governmental elephantiasis.
In conclusion, I apologize for being somewhat loquacious because I know that at least one other member wishes to speak. I have considerable sympathy for the rationale of the bill put forth by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), which we are now debating. I congratulate him for his initiative in sponsering the bill and urge all members to give it favourable consideration.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I would like to put some of my perceptions on this problem on the record. I suppose I should congratulate the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for bringing this proposal forward, but it never ceases to astound me that government members should criticize Crown corporations and their operating procedures. I have heard this criticism in private members' hours and in committees. Government members attack the bureaucrats involved with public agencies, but somehow there is a lapse in logic, a failure in perception. They attack the servants but not those who set the policies. I never hear them in question period criticizing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) or the others who are ultimately responsible for the government policy which should direct these corporations. Government members should insist on accountability and clarity of policy, but that never happens. I wonder how that lapse occurs. I am constantly astounded by these attacks.
December 3, 1981

I wish hon. members opposite would bend their efforts in a much more meaningful way.
I can certainly identify with the comments made by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), but again I have some serious questions about his party's approach. The hon. member put on the record clearly that truth is a phenomenon that occurs only in the eye of the beholder. Anyone who says the creation of Canadian National Railways was an achievement should hide his head. It resulted from the bankruptcy of the old Canadian Northern Railroad and, I suppose, Grand Trunk Pacific. There was a colossal mess. In the early part of the twentieth century the Liberal Party supported promoters and wheelers and dealers so that they could rip off the public enormously. The whole system collapsed in a mess, and, at about the time of World War I, the taxpayers of Canada picked up the mess and paid off the financiers and wheelers and dealers. CNR was not a mechanism to weld Canada together or to bind the thin band of population across the country. It was a pay-off to the banks and financiers who operated it in such a manner that it could not function properly. I wondered whether the Liberal Party would take credit for fathering such a monster! Over the years it became evident that the government was required to run it in a responsible fashion, and over the years it has eventually developed into a very credible transportation system.
However, we still hear constant criticism. The federal cabinet is the group that makes policy, and it is very unfortunate that the criticism of hon. members opposite is not directed to the individuals responsible.
I would like to deal with some questions of principle. A Crown corporation is an agency of public policy. I am certain all members of the House believe in a mixed economy. I am certain of it because of the remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough and the hon. member for Vaudreuil. If we are going to intervene in a mixed economy, we should do it in a very effective way, yet we leave Crown corporations hanging, neither fish nor fowl. We tell them to act like private corporations, to make profits and not to create expenditures for the government.
Clearly one of the basic problems here is that this government has not made up its mind as to what it wants to do with Crown corporations, and I will give a couple of examples. This government is not prepared to clarify its policy. It is not prepared to say that Crown corporations are agencies of public policy. It is not prepared to say that Crown corporations are created for social purposes and that they should be effective and accountable. That does not happen. They are left to hang.
With respect to accountability, we do not see reports to the committees of this House on a regular basis. No reports are laid before Parliament and studied by committees. The committee system is virtually incapable of handling this properly, and I lay that at the feet of the government, but the government attempts to reflect opposition criticism regarding its policies.
The credibility of Crown corporations in this country is stretched very thin when they are used as a mechanism of
Crown Corporations
patronage. They are a means of pork barrelling to an extent that would make a bank robber blush. One of our most prominent Crown corporations inherited a defeated Liberal cabinet minister. Who knows what connections or capabilities the individual had? He might have been the best president ever appointed to that corporation, but the public in Canada did not believe that or accept that. It severely strains the credibility of any organization when one of its prime functions is patronage. This is just not acceptable.
Getting back to the question of being neither fish nor fowl, I would say that Air Canada is probably one of the best airlines in this entire country. There is no doubt about that, but the purpose of that airline is not clear. What does the government intend to do with it? I leave Vancouver weekly, often on the old "red eye special" coming down here at midnight. I have a choice. I can travel on a one-third full Air Canada aircraft or a one-third full CP aircraft. As time passes, the airlines use stretched DC-8s, then DC-8s and then 727s, often with only a third of a load. I cannot see the sense in promoting two or three national air carriers in a market which does not warrant it. What is the policy? What social goal is to be achieved? These things are not clear.
With respect to Petro-Canada, I think it was on October 23, 1973, during a period of minority government that Tommy Douglas stood in the House and made one of the most definitive speeches on energy policy ever made. He advocated and demanded that an energy Crown corporation be created. It was not until the next Parliament that the government managed to address that. It was perfectly content to let foreign multinationals run the country. The government spoke in horror of what would happen if we ever let public enterprise, which, it was said, could not run a peanut stand, into the oil industry.
The government finally did create Petro-Canada but left it spinning its wheels for years, from about 1976 until 1980. No definite purpose had been established for it. Now we see Petro-Canada as a jewel in the dubious crown called the national energy policy. Petro-Canada now has a clear window and a mandate, but I would bet dollars to doughnuts that even Petro-Canada will be corrupted when it comes to throwing benefits to the private sector and placing the burdens on the taxpayer and the public sector. There will be that kind of split. This is what we get continually from both the other parties in the House, and it is a very serious situation.
Government members cannot have it both ways. They want to criticize Crown corporations, but let them go after the government. Let them go after the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Communications, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). Let us not go after the Crown corporations. Let us direct our attacks properly. I regret it when members of the governing party criticize Crown corporations but do not go to the source. They should be criticizing the policies of their own government.


Mr. Burghardt:: Mr. Speaker, this is my first opportunity to take part in a debate, although I have been on my feet during

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
question period and on motions. Before I get into what I would like to discuss-I think this is a very important matter-I wonder if we might be able to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Chair to understand that was the hon. member's maiden speech?


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: If that were the case, congratulations certainly would be in order!
The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure where I left off.


Ian Deans: Don't worry about it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I thank the House leader of the NDP very much for his advice. He tells me not to worry about it, and I won't. Thank you, sir.
I will start at the point where we are looking at a massive oil import bill in the 1980s when we really should have achieved energy self-sufficiency. This country should have full employment and full use of its productive capacity. We should have applied our minds, brains and interests sensibly toward putting in energy transportation systems that were and are still necessary, and ensuring we have the refinement capacity that we need for the heavier and sour types of oil. We should have moved faster in delivering gas to the east coast as an oil substitute. We knew these programs would have to be put in place eventually. If they had been put in place in a timely, planned manner, we would not be looking at an energy shortfall of some $8 billion this year. In the period 1981-1985, it is estimated that imported energy costs as a result of the shortsightedness, and in fact blindness of this government, will
amount to between $55 billion and $60 billion. This will place further pressure on our balance of trade account and on our foreign exchange reserves.
I have read many of the speeches of senior executives of major companies in the industry. I was very impressed with the quality and the amount of research that went into them. I read that the former chairman of the National Energy Board and now vice-president of the Royal Bank's global energy group, estimates that the spending required in this country in the next 20 years on energy alone will be approximately $1.4 trillion in current terms.
We see all kinds of moves on the part of the government to keep us from foreign ownership and to prevent foreigners from having more than 50 per cent of the industry. I guess there is some political sympathy for that. Surely the priority is energy self-sufficiency as fast as we can get it.
It is interesting to note that if you go back in history you find that emerging nations have been developed by foreign interests. As they come up to a wealth-creating capacity, they start to buy back the ownership of their interests. How is this country, with government policies and a budget such as we were given on November 12, ever going to create the wealth needed to supply the demands of capital in the quantities that these senior executives within the country estimate are required just in the energy field?
We only have something like seven years' supply, 7 billion barrels of conventional crude oil remaining in western Canada. Our shortfall is something like 400,000 barrels a day. We now have to deliver ourselves into tar sands and in situ processes. We are having to take, use and put into refining capacity sour and heavy type hydrocarbon oils. All of this is dead in the water while this country struggles with uneconomic matters and budgets that interfere with anything positive in the way of creating wealth, creating our own capital and paying for things ourselves. The combination of the constitutional package, Bill C-48 and the budget, that package of three pieces of legislation, will mean almost total socialization of the counry. The members across the aisle have not learned from those countries that have already tried the state ownership route that it will not bring sufficient wealth to a country to enable it to support the welfare system and answer the demands of the citizens put upon it.
The tragedy is that in the field of energy the free enterprise system has a proven record. It has served the people of Canada very well. It is true that massive amounts of money have been made through free enterprise, but also massive sums have been paid in taxes, and that has been an important element in the cash flow and in the treasury of this country.
I venture to say that if we look at the history and at the spending pattern of the government and if we look at the history of PetroCan, we will find that in two or three years from now PetroCan, with its massive power over the industry, will again be surrounded with the same group of Liberal friends as it moves in to exploration. I would be surprised if
December 3, 1981

that had not already happened, Mr. Speaker. The losses will be for the people of Canada to bear and the wins will be for the selected backers of the Liberal Party of Canada.
These three pieces of legislation are a massive intervention against the market and the private sector. I do not think there is any member of the House who can say that Parliament is still in control of the programs or the spending power of the nation under the series of Crown corporations that we have put in place. Too many of them cannot even be audited by the Auditor General, and we have not addressed the whole matter of control and accountability over Crown corporations in the Financial Administration Act. Also, no matter how hard the Standing Committee on Public Accounts works, all of these matters keep slowly being buried in the process of more and more studies.
It is a tragedy when the House cannot control the affairs of the nation and have the bureaucrats account for their actions. Bill C-48 has cut the heart out of Canadian operators. It is not only the multinationals that are injured by this bill. They are injured all right, but they have to stay here. They have no place to go. In the other markets of the world they are already established. It is the wholly Canadian-owned companies that are hurt by this bill, the operators, the geologists, the drilling companies, the trucking companies, the supply and service companies, the technologists. They are laying off people, and you can just see the lay-offs within the different sections of the energy industry that are taking place all across the country.
The National Energy Program delivers to Canadian operators something in the neighbourhood of $4 to $7 per barrel in profit. In the U.S. it is a profit of $15 to $25 per barrel. It is no wonder that the trucks are taking the rigs south. It is no wonder the Canadian operators are moving their working capital, talents and expertise down south where the whole exploration industry is booming, where there is a demand and a call for the industry. All of the rigs in Canada are quiet. Only a fraction of our capacity is being utilized. We have not given the industry an incentive to go from shallow well technology into deep well technology as a result of the national energy policy of the Liberal government.
As a result of this, we will have to face some tragedies, and that is the reason the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has such a low profile these days. He came in very proudly and announced he had an agreement with Alberta, and then a subsequent fast, quickie agreement with British Columbia, and then an agreement with the province of Saskatchewan, the oil producing provinces. The premiers thought everything would stabilize. He could not hear the voices of the advisers, the presidents and the knowledgeable people in the industry who kept telling him that the government was not leaving enough cash flow for the private sector to take a meaningful part in exploration and development.
It is now my understanding that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the premiers of those provinces have realized they have made a serious mistake. I gather that they are now returning to the drawing fables to draft a program
Canada Oil and Gas Act
under which they will have to take less for themselves and allow more for the industry so that it can get going.
How will we create this $1.4 trillion in current dollar terms in the next 20 years unless we give the companies in that creative sector, that engineering and risk-taking sector, room to move and some incentive to risk their dollars? Most of the winning technology today is a combination of outside and domestic technology. Why should we penalize so severely the foreign technology and know-how that we need? Why should we make this country so unattractive to the Canadian operators that they now have to go to other markets of the world to survive?
The 8 per cent gross revenue tax effectively reduces corporate earnings by 25 per cent. The retroactivity policy involving 25 per cent of all the holdings of oil and gas companies in the federal or Canada lands should not exist in a country that is bragging about its fair taxation policy.
The principle of retroactivity that exists in Bill C-48, which is now very definitely a Liberal government policy that was announced to the nation on November 12, means that retroactive earnings will now be taxed. Never before has a free country had to contend with this. Not only has retroactivity become a government policy, but they have now removed from under the taxation base of Canada the ability to pay retroactive tax so that you have to pay that tax from other earnings.
I was saying before five o'clock that we were just getting used to the ten years of recovery from the taxation policy set down in 1971. As soon as the oil operators in the country have started to get a handle on the rules of the game, low and behold, on November 12, the government pulls the rug out from under the taxation system and absolutely destroys the decision-making base of this country.
This country cannot progress in conditions where anyone in the industry who is willing to work and take a risk has to wait for some government bureaucrat at some desk in the concrete towers of Ottawa to say yes or no. The country in those circumstances is bound to come to a complete halt. Is socialism worth it, Mr. Speaker? That is what will be delivered to the people of Canada. It will destroy the base that has made this country great. That is what the November 12 budget does, together with Bill C-48. It is the same socialist, elitist thinking that is in Bill C-48 that is also in the November 12 budget. How we can hang on to the bounty, the welfare and the pension plans that we have learned to expect from our system of government in Canada is beyond me.
In the months preceding the budget, with the PetroCan acquisition of Petrofina and CPI acquisition of International Paper, and all the concentration of ownership within the business community and the state sector, we have delivered $17 billion on our foreign exchange reserve account. If one cannot imagine how serious that is, one just has to remember that the reserve base was at $3.7 billion and the government had to borrow $1 billion to bring it back to over $3 billion just a few weeks ago. Yet lying in the wings, as a result of the degree of corporate concentration that this government has allowed through its national energy policy and its pre-budget

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
era, we have committed ourselves to $17 billion on demand in our foreign exchange account. Can we imagine the pressure it will have on the Canadian dollar? Will there be any chance of interest rates coming down to a reasonable spread above the inflation rate of the land? The incompetence of the government and the mismanagement of the economy will be recorded in the annals of history in terms of absolute treachery and what has been done to a once viable and healthy country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) was not allowed to continue. It was worth listening to his comments. I congratulate him for giving hon. members something about which to think.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Hon. members opposite may laugh but these words will haunt them in years to come. We have spent a good deal of time on Bill C-48. It deserves a good deal of our attention because it was poorly drafted. Even the government brought in over 100 amendments to satisfy its own officials that in fact the bill would work. It would not accept any reasonable amendments from the opposition parties, therefore we must now state that the bill is not deserving of passage. It should be taken out of the House, pulled apart and redrafted so that Canadians receive the oil and mineral wealth of the north and offshore. The government should provide incentives to create competition. Then companies would go into areas with tough weather conditions, ice-periods of time when there is no daylight and so forth-conditions which make it difficult to explore. There must be incentives for people and companies to go into those areas as well as offshore. Most of us cannot even visualize drilling on a rig a number of miles offshore in rough waters.
Tonight I should like to outline the picture of energy we now face and to determine why the bill will not work or will not be of assistance in reaching the goal of self-sufficiency. Also I should like to deal with a number of groups who have mentioned the reasons for their concerns in regard to the bill. On a net basis we presently import some 400,000 barrels of oil per day, which is roughly 22 per cent of our daily needs of approximately 1.8 million barrels per day. At current world prices of some $44 per barrel, oil imports cost Canada some $17.6 million per day or $6.4 billion per year. The situation will become worse in the next few years.
At present our domestic oil supplies come from fields in western Canada and from the Syncrude and Suncor plants.
Western Canadian reserves of conventional, light and medium crude, which account for 90 per cent of present production, are now more than 60 per cent depleted. Production from existing fields is declining at a rate of approximately 10 per cent per year. Production capacity of existing fields is now about 1.1 million barrels per day. By 1985 it will have declined to about
850,000	barrels per day, and by 1990 to only 500,000 barrels per day. Obviously the Government of Canada had to get a grip on the situation, establish some priorities and devise a strategy to move Canada toward self-sufficiency.
I should like to refer to some potential sources of increased domestic supply. There are undiscovered conventional supplies of oil in western Canada-there is no doubt about it. We can extract additional barrels of oil from heavy oil and from the tar sands, but the National Energy Program and present negotiating conditions are not allowing these plants to go ahead. But the potential is there. Also there is an ability with present technology to draw the in situ capacity from depleted wells in the conventional fields of western Canada. The first such plant, the Imperial Oil plant at Judy Creek, is now on hold because there is not sufficient incentive for the company to invest money to bring the plant onstream.
Of course, we know there is oil in the frontier areas of Canada-the north, the Beaufort Sea, the Mackenzie Delta, and off the east coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is clear that the National Energy Program is geared toward the offshore and the north. Its whole approach to self-sufficiency is that we can catch up on our imports and control them through conservation. It is an important theory because conservation is an easy way to protect the consumption of barrels of oil. However, our record in the past has not been good. It is improving, and hopefully it will continue to improve. Part of the plan is the use of conservation until the late 1980s when oil from offshore and from frontier areas can be brought onstream. Supposedly we would have self-sufficiency by 1990. When we consider the budget and what is contained in this bill, it is obvious that the government is geared toward gutting the industry in western Canada and promoting, as much as possible, government control of the industry offshore and in the north. As the hon. member for Capilano said, as a result hundreds of millions of dollars are being forced offshore, south of the border; thousands of trained professional people are being lost to the United States; and hundreds of rigs are no longer drilling in our basin. Of the 10,000 exploratory wells that were expected to be drilled in western Canada in 1981, only 6,400 will be completed, while a significant part of the oil service industry has been emigrating to the United States in search of employment and adequate returns. Major enhanced recovery initiatives, such as the Imperial Oil Judy Creek project, have been shelved.
It has been estimated by the Canadian Petroleum Association that, in terms of activity levels, the industry has stepped backward about three years as a result of the National Energy Program. It has had a devastating effect upon oil drilling in my area which produces two-thirds of the conventional oil in the nation. The largest Canadian industrial park, which has as
December 3, 1981

its main components oil servicing and oil well drilling companies, has been devastated; $100 million has been lost in that small region of Canada, along with thousands of jobs. It is difficult to understand why the government would create a policy which has driven many experts away from that area of Alberta into the United States.
I should like to refer to a few statistics which have appeared constantly in Edmonton newspapers. For example, hundreds of trailer camps sit idle in Edmonton industrial yards. During the past year more than 650 people have been laid off in the industrial trailer camp manufacturing industry in Alberta. Since the fall of 1980, the Territorial Company in Edmonton has cut back its manufacturing and service staff from 500 people to 271. Six other industrial camp producers in the Edmonton area cut their staff by 30 per cent to 75 per cent. These are people who just a few years ago put their money on the line. They bought a piece of property, put up a building, hired their neighbours to come in and build the trailer camps that would provide catering capacity for the oil drilling industry. Some of them bought small service rigs to assist in the drilling industry. Many of the companies that drilled were unable to make a decent return, and so had no choice but to either leave their rigs idle or move to the United States.
During the past year, manufacturing employment in Alberta has dropped by 8,000 jobs. That is a significant number in a province that had been booming. The demand for workers has increased in other areas, and that has absorbed some of the people who had been thrown out of their jobs.
Other areas, such as the construction industry, have been able to absorb some of the unemployed. The Edmonton Journal conducted a survey of specific businesses. The result shows that more than 1,200 people have already been laid off in the industrial camp manufacturing and camp catering sector. That is a small but intense sector. Company officials predict that the prospects for this winter look even worse. Some industry estimates place the employment impact at between 20,000 and
25,000	jobs, including about 8,000 jobs lost in the oil patch and 15,000 jobs lost in related industries.
Many of these people were producing for the north-for camps and catering facilities working in the Beaufort Sea. I hope that activity will continue in that area so that more people are not laid off there.
There is a lack of incentive for business in the bill, Mr. Speaker. It has been demonstrated that profitability in the United States is about four times higher than in Canada. Quite clearly, then, the government has placed its energy priorities in the offshore, and Bill C-48 was supposed to set regulations to attract industry into that area.
The bill is also supposed to regulate the Canada lands. Obviously there is a great deal of potential in these areas, so we could have expected the government to bring in a bill that would provide incentives and encourage companies to work in the north. But there are only disincentives. There are back-in provisions and there are extraordinary taxes. It does not even
Canada Oil and Gas Act
allow the deduction of interest as a legitimate expense. Instead of incentives, we find provisions in the bill that will go a long way toward reducing competition, discouraging investment and deterring the industry.
The taxes contained in the bill will have the effect of discouraging all but perhaps three or four companies from working in the north. Of course, Petro-Canada will be the favourite son. As far as real competition in the north and the offshore is concerned, however, there will be virtually none.
Anyone who has heard me speak on this bill in this chamber before will know how strongly I feel about the value of competition in a sector that is supposed to make us self-sufficient in oil and gas in the future. Competition has been very successful in the past, but it has virtually been made ineffective by this bill. I do not intend to go through that argument again. I have already spent some time explaining why the bill will have that result again.
Competition is essential when we deal with an industry such as the resource industry with its implications for our businesses, our economic wellbeing, our very lifestyle and our employment situation. This is the one industry that was growing rapidly and employing new people. At one time it was growing so rapidly that we could not supply enough geologists and chemists to meet the demand.
One of the reasons why competition in this industry is so important is that we now have on the books a bill that states that companies must table their core samples and drilling results after one year.
In many cases, company geologists will find that, although another company drilled a hole a year earlier and found nothing, they, using a different technique and with different abilities and different intellectual capacities, can go back into that area, drill again and find gas and oil. One of the largest gas fields in North America was discovered in this way. A large company had drilled in northwestern Alberta, but it was a dry hole. A year later another company, Canadian Hunter, checked the results, went back to that area and drilled again. It found the largest field of natural gas in North America.
Other small companies with good geologists have been extraordinarily successful in Alberta, Saskatchewan and British Columbia. They have studied the core samples of other companies, and a year later have found what was missed. That is what competition does, Mr. Speaker.
Two or three companies can explore a huge area, such as the offshore in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. They can have the same geologists, the same people throughout their whole bureaucracy, so there is no big gap in intellectual capacity. If they do not make a find then, as things stand under this bill, other companies will not be interested in going in to test again because they will not be able to afford it.
This area has the greatest potential for oil and gas in North America but we are putting a law on the books that provides incentives for only two or three companies. I find that very hard to understand, Mr. Speaker.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
On the one hand, the government is saying that we need to be self-sufficient by 1990 and that we can do that by developing the north and the offshore. On the other hand, it seems to bend over backwards to discourage the very activity it seeks. The only area in which it has been successful is the nationalization program which results in many hundreds of millions of Canadian dollars going out of the country when they are needed to develop our own industry. And this money does not produce one more barrel of oil, Mr. Speaker.
The taxation regime which this bill puts in place imposes a
10	per cent basic royalty; a 40 per cent participating royalty after a 25 per cent return on investment; an 8 per cent gas and
011	production tax; and a unique 25 per cent back-in tax. As the hon. member for Capilano said, no other country in the free world has done this. The total of these taxes is over 83 per cent, Mr. Speaker.
The government can claim that it plans to give an exploration grant depending upon the degree of Canadian ownership, and that it does not allow deductions for legitimate business expenses such as interest. That is a very small incentive for an area of so much risk such as the north. Most companies would not consider going into an area like that unless the potential return on investment was between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.
Some countries in the world have used a different system to encourage companies to go into high risk areas. In these countries, a company which finds a well that has a production capacity is allowed to use all the wealth from that oil production to pay off its debt first rather than to pay large interest costs and other costs such as royalties and taxes. Once the debt is paid off, the government then comes in with its royalty and profit tax. This system is much more successful than ours and is having tremendous success in countries such as Norway. I believe that is something we should seriously consider for our northern regions because of the high costs of exploration in those areas. As well, as I said before, we will really only allow three or four companies into the north, companies which can operate under this tax regime.
Let us look at the effect that that may have on self-sufficiency. Let us take a look at a small area around the town of Leduc in the Nisku-Drayton Valley of the province of Alberta. We have been exploring in that area for over 30 years. Tens of thousands of holes have been drilled by hundreds of companies, and the success rate over those 30 years has been very good. Even today, in that very area, we are still discovering oil and natural gas. Just a few weeks ago we drilled a new well which is producing 700 barrels of oil per day. Therefore, if only three or four companies start operating in the north, in an area which is 50 to 60 times the size of the area I have mentioned, unless they are extremely lucky, they will not achieve the same kind of production that could come on stream in the next four or five years if we had good competition and a number of experts working in that area.
The back-in provision in Bill C-48 causes me a great deal of difficulty. I cannot disagree more strongly with this tax. These
were not rules upon which companies went into the north and risked their capital. People went into the north, took the risks and stayed a long time away from home, often for questionable returns. Those rules were not there at that time. Companies went up into that region because they expected to find something. They were prepared to take profits that they were earning from producing wells in other parts of Canada and place those profits in the north through incentives that we made available such as a depletion allowance.
Now the minister is saying, "Well, we have a right to this back-in provision because the Canadian taxpayer has, in fact, already paid for it." That is just a lot of nonsense! If incentive is provided for a company to go in there, it does so in good faith. However, when it has made a discovery and a back-in provision is put in place, it is no wonder it puts little trust in the government. How can one have any trust anymore? What private company will put its capital on the line when it is not sure what the government will come up with two years or three years down the way?
Even if we, as a government, wanted to put in a provision which would allow a 25 per cent part of the play to a Crown corporation, surely we should have made that effective in 1982 or 1983, which would have allowed companies to prepare for it. I know that the Dome Petroleum Company, which has spent a lot of time and effort and has been very successful in the north, has placed before us a proposal regarding the 25 per cent back-in in Canada lands. I think it is a proposal which should be given consideration. However, if we want to impose such a tax, and I certainly do not think we need to, surely we should have put the tax in place as of 1981, 1982 or 1983, with 5 per cent one year and 10 per cent the next, or something of that sort. That would have been more fair to the companies which are spending time and effort in that region.
As my time in this debate draws to an end, I want to place on the record the concerns of another group regarding this bill. They are the concerns of the people who have lived in the north for many years. The majority of them are native people. They have particular concern with this bill because it is coming at a time when their land claims are just now moving toward settlement. If a lot of drilling does go on in that area, they are unsure whether they can lay claim to the land where a drilling rig is situated. That concern is not defined in this bill. It is not settled anywhere. I can see only one section which pertains to this matter, Section 5(7), which states:
-nothing in this Act abrogates or derogates from any aboriginal title, right or claim that pertained to the aboriginal peoples of Canada prior to the coming into force of this Act-
While the section is included in the hope that it will, in fact, protect native people, they are very concerned about this bill. Nothing in this bill will exempt lands from being claimed. It is unlikely that lands under development will be surrendered by the government to natives claiming them. Harry Daniels, the outgoing president of the Native Council of Canada, has pointed out the very problem that lies in this section. He stated that:
December 3, 1981

-once the drill rigs are up and production centres on the drawing boards and approved by government, there will be no turning back. Do you realty think that under those circumstances the government would withdraw those lands?
These are legitimate concerns. When we look at the COPE settlement, lands that were under exploration at the time were withdrawn from the negotiating area.
Another area of concern is the Norman Wells development. Under this bill, the area around the Norman Wells production sources and refining area is not included. Section 10(2)(d) provides for equitable participation by the aboriginal peoples affected by the particular exploration agreement. This is fine, and this is a good section. However, where will these people get the equity? From where will they get the money? In most instances, these people have no funds at all. They have no capacity for raising funds to participate in an equitable sense. In the southern provinces, in Saskatchewan and Alberta, we have set up trust funds for future generations to participate in the wealth from oil and gas. It would seem to me that we could learn something from this and apply it to the Northwest Territories and Yukon, as well as the native people in that area. It would make sense if we were to put a section in this bill setting up a trust fund which would come from the earnings of oil and gas production in the area, so that these people could use that money to begin equitable participation in the north and, hopefully, make some discoveries on their own. However, without that type of suggestion or initiative, there is simply no way that they can get the equity, the billions of dollars that it costs to drill a well offshore in the Beaufort Sea or in the Mackenzie Delta. This is something which should have been considered, and Section 10(2)(d) will really be meaningless unless we have some way of providing the initial capacity for equity in the north.
For all these reasons, and there are many more which my colleagues have stated, this bill should be withdrawn, pulled apart section by section, and redrafted so that under the new provisions we can reach energy self-sufficiency by 1990 or soon thereafter. If we put this bill in place now, even though some of its rules will assist, we will not reach that goal. We will not have the kind of competitiveness necessary in the north. We will not have the necessary oil companies and people in that area, and we will fail our country miserably.
For that reason, I say that it would be impossible for me to vote in favour of Bill C-48. I hope that the House will seriously consider all the reasons that my colleagues and I are putting forward.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Thomson (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House this afternoon and it was my hope he would be here tonight because there is something I wanted to say to him. It takes a big man in this life to admit a mistake. The National Energy Program is surely a mistake of tragic proportion for Canadians. The Minister of Energy has had an opportunity, since becoming the minister and having spent some time as
Canada Oil and Gas Act
critic when we were in government, to learn something about the oil industry. In all fairness to the minister, I think he is a big enough man to admit a mistake.
This National Energy Program will be changed. We are not going to change it here tonight on third reading, but it is going to be changed because there is no incentive left for the oil industry to go out and explore for the oil and gas we desperately need. Strangely enough, there is still 40 per cent of the Canadian population who believe we do not have a problem even today. Some 40 per cent of Canadians do not think we have a problem in terms of future oil and gas supplies. They think this has all been rigged, and that somehow the government and the major oil companies have perpetrated a fraud on the Canadian people. The National Energy Program will be changed, and I would have thought that the Minister of Energy was a big enough man to recognize the need for such a change at this time.
The minister has said there are some anomalies in the program and that Premier Lougheed and the Alberta government can sort out these anomalies and give the industry a few little handouts here and there which will encourage the industry to go back to work. This is not something that requires a band-aid solution, and the Alberta government cannot do it all by itself.
Let me assure you that the National Energy Program needs to be changed in its basic, fundamental thrust. It is completely out of tune with the reality of the industry and the needs of the Canadian people. Essentially, the reason for that is that there is no incentive left.
I have been involved in the oil and gas business for 20 years. The new oil prices under the National Energy Program are very attractive. If I could believe, first of all, that we were going to get that kind of price for our oil and, second, if I could trust the government not to go in and confiscate what I had found, I might be prepared to go and look for it, but I do not trust the government. Therein lies the fundamental problem with the investors today who want to go out and invest in the oil and gas industry.
The investor does not believe in the prices which have been projected forward and, moreover, he believes that if he does find it, the government will not allow him to keep it. Why should he believe that? Every time any investor has gone out and found oil or gas in this country, the federal government or provincial governments have stolen it from him. Why should an investor trust a government today? I would not.
I am prepared to accept the fact that part of the downturn in the oil and gas industry we have seen in Alberta-and we have seen a massive downturn in activity-is a result of the fact that we cannot export our gas. We have huge reserves of shut-in gas in Alberta today and we cannot export it and we do not have the pipeline to deliver it to eastern Canada in place as yet. 1 accept that fact as part of the reason our industry has suffered a slowdown. The National Energy Program has gone much further than that in causing the disaster we are experiencing in my province of Alberta today.
13712

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Let me return to the main objectives of the National Energy Program. When the program was introduced a year ago in the House the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said the objectives were security of supply, fairness in terms of revenue sharing and an opportunity for Canadians. I guess there is not a member in the House or a person in Canada who would not agree with these noble objectives. We all want energy security, we would like to think revenues are being fairly shared and, above all, we would like to think there is an opportunity for Canadians. Those are admirable objectives.
Has the National Energy Program really provided us with a program to achieve energy security? Do we in fact have a fair sharing of revenues, and has the program created an opportunity for Canadians? From my perspective, the energy program has failed on all counts. In spite of what the Minister of Energy continues to say, there is absolutely no hope that we will be self-sufficient in oil by 1990. I am not going to go back into my arguments; I spoke for 40 minutes a few weeks ago explaining why we are not going to be self-sufficient in oil. This is a myth and a delusion and the Minister of Energy and the officials of Energy, Mines and Resources know it to be a myth and a delusion. It is a sham to pretend to the Canadian people that we can be self-sufficient in oil in 1990. That is simply a falsehood. It is done to sound nice to the Canadian people. It is decisive and it represents confidence, and Canadians above all need confidence. "Let us not face the truth; above all, let us not face the truth. Let us bury our heads in the sands and let us deceive one another", they say.
I can recall Mr. Gillespie, the former minister of energy, saying in 1974, "There is no problem, Canadians, we have a program in place for you and we will be self-sufficient in 1980." Oh, yes, we are self-sufficient in 1980. Certainly we are; we are buying 400,000 barrels of oil a day. This government and the minister of energy are no less deceitful than the minister who preceded him, Mr. Gillespie.
The National Energy Program will result in the need to at least double our imports of foreign oil before the end of the decade. This is a matter of simple arithmetic. There is no great complexity to this at all. Our domestic reserves are declining. Our total consumption is estimated to remain about the same, and there is no viable method in place for making up the difference in the next decade. The minister knows it and Energy, Mines and Resources people know it. Those are the facts. This is not only my opinion, it is the opinion of many knowledgeable authorities in Canada who are not trying to deceive the Canadian people. That is energy self-sufficiency for Canadians? That is oil self-sufficiency by 1990? Forget it, because it is not there.
Let us talk about fairness in revenue-sharing. I suppose that fairness in revenue sharing depends on your point of view. If you are the federal government, you would be rubbing your hands in glee because you just took $55 billion from the Canadian people and you think that is a fair share of revenue. The Alberta government did all right, too. They did not do any
worse than the federal government. It got a big slice of pie. The province of Ontario got its pound of flesh.
The consumer is paying 75 per cent of the price for gasoline and heating fuel in the form of government taxes and royalties between the federal and provincial levels. The government leaves the industry 25 per cent to find the oil, produce it, refine it and deliver it to our automobiles. Some may say that is all right, that there is nothing wrong with 25 per cent, that it seems like a good number because, after all, these oil companies are making huge sums of money.
Can we really look at anything in terms of the absolute amount of money which is made? In this case we are looking at literally billions of dollars which oil companies have to spend to build an oil sands plant and hundreds of millions of dollars to drill in the Beaufort Sea and Hibernia. These are also large sums of money which have to be spent. I suggest that the oil companies' rate of return, the amount of money they receive from their invested assets, is less than that of the manufacturing industry in Ontario. In 1980, the oil industry in Canada had an 11 per cent rate of return on its total invested capital, as compared to 13 per cent for all manufacturing industries in Canada.
Is 25 per cent adequate? If it is, why is the oil and gas exploration industry not taking advantage of this opportunity? If this opportunity is so great, why are 150 rigs in western Canada shut down for lack of work, and why have the 214 rigs drilling in western Canada left the country? Tell me why an additional 48 rigs will leave the country in the next few months? And why is it that 161 oil well servicing rigs are not working today and 92 oil well servicing rigs have left the country? An additional 52 oil well servicing rigs will be sold or shipped out of Canada in the next few months. The difference between a drilling rig and an oil well servicing rig is that a drilling rig is used for the original discovery and the oil well servicing rig comes in afterward to be used for remedial work and to make the oil well continue to produce at a sustainable level.
If the National Energy Program is such a great opportunity, why is it that the oil and gas industry has lost the services of
8,000	field workers? Those 8,000 men have worked on those drilling and service rigs as well as all the other equipment involved in the oil industry. Why did 8,000 of these workers lose their jobs? Many of them have left Canada and will not be back.
If this is such a great opportunity, why is it that our independent oil companies have moved in droves to the United States, Australia and other countries? If 25 per cent of the revenues is such a great deal in Canada, why are these companies moving out of Canada in droves? These companies have moved $3 billion worth of capital out of the country in the last year. Did the government not think Canadians wanted to explore in Canada if given an adequate opportunity and the incentive? Does this indicate a fair sharing of revenues to you, Mr. Speaker?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that some elements of the oil and gas industry have expressed
December 3, 1981

disappointment about the impact of the energy agreement on cash flow. Well, how about that? He goes on to say, "I believe this approach reflects, in most cases, a preoccupation with short-term prospects". When a company is literally facing bankruptcy, as many small oil and gas companies are today, and I do not exaggerate that fact for a moment, is it not surprising that one would be looking at shorter term prospects? If you need evidence, just talk to a banker in Calgary. He will tell you that there are at least a hundred small oil and gas companies which will not be around at this time next year if there is not a change. If you want to buy oil and gas reserves, there is ample opportunity to do so because there are many for sale in Calgary and Edmonton today. As I said, if you were in this position, would you not be looking for shorter-term prospects? After all, you may not be around long enough to look at long-term prospects.
The minister of energy says, "I would think that the ability to explore and develop in Alberta, or anywhere else, would not be enhanced by conveying to investors an overly dark picture of industry prospects on the basis of some short-term and entirely predictable factors." What does he mean? Does he think that oil companies can persuade investors to risk their money on oil and gas exploration by simply telling them that the National Energy Program is a wonderful opportunity and that these investors should get on board? Does he really believe that private investors are that naive? Is the minister suggesting that the industry should be telling private investors that the National Energy Program is a wonderful opportunity to make money? Is he suggesting that we lie to them and try to deceive them into investing their money?
Investors know the facts and have read about them. That is why the oil and gas index on junior oil companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange has declined by more than 35 per cent since the introduction of the National Energy Program. I might say that the junior oil companies in Canada have suffered more than the industry as a whole because they have been affected to a greater degree than any other part of the industry. They do not have the cash flow to sustain their operations as do the multinationals which have downstream benefits from petrochemical and refining operations from which they will be able to sustain themselves.
However, the junior oil and gas companies have risked large ammounts of money in the search for oil and gas reserves, and in many cases they have those reserves in the ground and have not yet had the opportunity to develop a sufficient cash flow to sustain themselves because their assets are invested in exploration. They invested their assets in the ground before the National Energy Program began because they felt they had an opportunity to make a dollar.
The minister says that there has been a dispute between the industry and the government over netbacks on oil and gas. Netback is a term commonly used in the industry and it means the net amount left over after expenses and taxes have been taken from gross revenue. The minister went on to say that when the government calculates the netbacks, "we assume the producer is reinvesting heavily and therefore qualifies for tax
Canada Oil and Gas Act
write-offs." Well, indeed he does. There is no question about that. If he reinvests, he qualifies for tax write-offs. The minister went on to say that the government uses what the government calls an effective tax rate. The effective tax rate is the rate of tax paid after having taken all write-offs. This statement is absolute nonsense. Do hon. members assume that an investor or anyone else does not have to pay his full rate of income tax? Is that the assumption we should make? Sooner or later every investor knows that if he is going to put a dollar into his pocket, he is going to have to pay a dollar to the Crown.
One does not assess business opportunities based on avoiding income taxes. That is what the minister is asking the industry to do, and that is what he is asking the investment community to do. He is asking them to assess their opportunities based on the fact that they can continue to write off, write off, and write off. However, there comes a day when perhaps one does not want to write off any more. Perhaps a person does not want to be in the oil and gas business anymore. An individual investor drills a well and finds oil and gas. Perhaps he wants to go on and do something different and pay his taxes. Perhaps he does not want to reinvest in another oil or gas well. Should he not be allowed to assess his investment without having to take into consideration the fact that he is compelled to go back in and reinvest his profits in an oil and gas venture? The minister's statement is absolutely dishonest, and he knows it. Investors make decisions on paying their income taxes, not avoiding them.
Finally, the third cornerstone of the National Energy Program is opportunity for Canadians. I would like just one Canadian to tell me what opportunities have been created for him by virtue of the National Energy Program. Let hon. members opposite tell the 8,000 rig workers who have lost their jobs what a great opportunity the National Energy Program has provided for them. Maybe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) would like to go and talk to those 8,000 workers in Alberta and tell them what a great opportunity it has been for them. Let him tell the investors in the small Canadian oil and gas companies what a great opportunity it has been for them. They just lost 35 per cent of their investment, but let the parliamentary secretary go and tell them what a great opportunity it has been for them. Let him tell all the contractors and the engineering firms who were making plans to help build Cold Lake, the in situ project in Alberta. Let him go and tell them. Let him tell all the contractors and engineering firms connected with the Alsands project what a great opportunity it has been for them. Let him tell the manufacturers of equipment in Ontario and Quebec what a great opportunity the National Energy Program has been for them.
Finally, let him tell the consumers what a great opportunity they have had when gasoline prices and home heating fuel prices have doubled since the National Energy Program. A super opportunity! Let him tell the thousands of people in

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Calgary who were formerly employed in the oil and gas industry and have had to move their families and their homes to the United States to make a living what a great opportunity the National Energy Program has been for them.
In summary, the National Energy Program, in terms of energy security, fairness and opportunity, is an unmitigated disaster. It is a disaster for which all Canadians will pay dearly. They are paying dearly for it right now in the prices of oil products such as gasoline and home heating fuel, and the tragedy of it all is that they are not getting a thing for it. The provincial and federal governments are getting it all, and the consumer is getting nothing. He is not getting energy security, he is not getting opportunity and he is not getting fairness.
I have said that the National Energy Program has denied investors the incentive to invest in their own country and denied workers jobs. Above all, Canadians have been denied the economic growth that would come from a healthy oil and gas industry.
Let me turn more particularly to Bill C-48 which we have before us this evening. Bill C-48 is particularly important because it deals with the opportunity to find truly enormous reserves of oil and gas in our frontier areas offshore, in the Arctic and in the Northwest Territories. On one point I agree with the federal government and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and that is with respect to the prominent role Canada lands should play in the future development of energy in Canada. On that point I fully agree. Discoveries in Canada lands should account for an increasingly larger share of exploration and development in the future. The importance of Canada lands to Canada cannot be stressed too much. They are absolutely critical to our energy security and, moreover, they provide us with an opportunity of untold proportions to build a strong Canadian economy by putting people, capital and equipment together to capture the enormous wealth under Canada lands and waters. We really have a fantastic opportunity. We have an opportunity no other country in the world I can think of has to build a strong economy and give the best standard of living to every Canadian, if we want to go out and grasp it and develop our resources in the Canada lands. However, there will have to be some prerequisites to that. We will have to allow the private sector to go out and do it because no government can do that for us, unless we completely nationalize everything in the country and abandon all concepts of the private sector.
The amount of money required to develop our resources in the frontier areas in the Northwest Territories and offshore is staggering. The Royal Bank, to quote a number-I do not know whether hon. members want to believe it or not, but others have come up with the same number-has said that we need $400 billion in the next decade to do that job. I really wonder whether we want to pay taxes to that extent and let Petro-Canada do it. I am not going to get into the Petro-Canada argument tonight, but I will say that Petro-Canada has not done one doggone thing for Canadians since it was invented. It has not found any oil or any gas. It has just cost taxpayers a bunch of money. However, this wealth cannot be
captured without incentives to industry, and this is where Bill C-48 completely fails to come to grips with our future. Not only do we have a lack of incentives for industry but we also have confiscation and a regulatory environment which will discourage exploration. That is what Bill C-48 is all about. It is about confiscation, retroactive confiscation and regulation.
This government has a mentality which says, "Jeepers, we cannot allow anybody to make a dollar. If we allow somebody to make a dollar, that has to be wrong". The mentality is that it has to be wrong if we allow anyone to make a dollar, so we will not let anyone make a dollar. The government says we should not allow our resources to be developed by that rotten, dirty old private sector!
My most serious concern-and it has been expressed time and time again in the debate on Bill C-48, not only by myself but also by other members of our party-is the retroactive 25 per cent back-in provision outlined in Clause 27 of the bill. I will acknowledge that the government has moved from its original position of expropriation without compensation. I suppose we can give the government a small amount of credit for at least recognizing that it should not steal without giving a little bit back. The government moved to a scheme which is intended to provide for recovery of prior expenditures made by the initial oil finder. The government will reimburse a company, if it goes out and finds oil, a small portion of its costs. This is called ex gratia compensation, but it is totally unfair. It provides only for prior expenditures made in the discovery area related to successful and developed hydrocarbon accumulations, and ignores the inherent value of the reserves taken by the Crown.
It sounds like a nice argument. The government tells you to go out, find it and then it takes 25 per cent and pays what it cost. However, it will not pay for dry holes that have been drilled. If 12 dry holes are drilled at a cost of $50 million a hole, which is what it costs in Hibernia and the Beaufort Sea, the government will not pay for that. However, if there is a find, it will pay 25 per cent of the $50 million.
Do hon. members really believe that is fair? I have used the word expropriation. It is a strong word. Nobody likes expropriation. To a lot of people expropriation means stealing. Is it difficult to imagine what other term would apply in a situation where assets are literally seized unilaterally without any semblance or attempt at negotiated settlement?
The Saskatchewan government expropriated to potash companies. I will give the provincial NDP government some credit, and it is not often I have cause to say anything good about them. However, at least it sat down and negotiated a reasonable deal based on the fair market value.
The Quebec government wants to take over the asbestos corporation. It is sitting down and talking to the owners, negotiating in good faith what it believes to be a reasonable market value. Not this government, no sir. It expropriates with no semblance of compensation cost. It reminds me of Iran and Libya. Those are the kinds of governments those countries
December 3, 1981

have. They just walk in, take it, and if you do not like it, lump it.
The definition of adequate compensation in the case of a government expropriation is always a contentious issue, but Canadian governments in the past have always recognized a basic fundamental principle that fair and equitable compensation for expropriated assets is not related to historical cost but is based on the market value of those assets.
I find it paradoxical that Petro-Canada, the federal government's own oil company in its acquisition of Petrofina and other companies, accepted fair market value as the appropriate benchmark in its takeovers. It paid a premium over and above the market value for the companies it acquired. I cannot understand why the proprietary rights to petroleum reserves should be treated differently. Will somebody explain that? I do not understand it. Why is it that the federal government pays a premium over fair market value for certain assets and will expropriate other assets at a fraction of the cost? It does not make any sense to me.
Witnesses have stated in connection with the Hibernia field-and for those who do not know where it is, it is offshore Newfoundland-that the present value of the proposed compensation that the federal government proposes to pay when it expropriates the 25 per cent interest is in the range of five to ten cents per barrel of oil, after tax. In the case of Sable Island, which is a gas field, we hope, the value of the compensation works out on an after-tax basis to a mere one cent per
1,000	cubic feet of gas. These estimates of ex gratia payments have been calculated using the government's own formula.
The market value of the reserves taken by the Crown is difficult to determine because such estimates must be based on unknown factors 10 to 20 years hence. It is particularly difficult to establish market values of fields such as Hibernia and Sable Island where the prospective economic and regulatory environment is still unknown. This is also true in the Canadian Arctic. Let us forget about the economics of offshore Sable Island and the Arctic. Let us accept a recent study of an independent consultant in Canada who values Canadian conventional oil reserves at $2.50 per barrel for oil and 40 cents per 1,000 cubic feet for gas. The point I am trying to get across is that ex gratia payment offered in Bill C-48, ranging from five to ten cents per barrel and one cent per 1,000 cubic feet of gas, does not come anywhere close to the fair market value of the reserves being seized.
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and other members of the government argue that the back-in provision is simply payment for taxation foregone as a result of earlier tax incentives. Where is the logic in an argument that uses a system of tax incentives which was introduced with the specific intent of encouraging high-risk and high-cost exploration to justify retroactive measures? It reminds me of the budget; what was an incentive yesterday is a loophole today. We provide incentives for people to find oil and gas, then change the rules in midstream and confiscate part of their assets at the same time. Is that an incentive? Furthermore, this reasoning ignores the fact that once commercial production is estab-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
lished, the government realizes its share of the proceeds automatically through royalty and tax payments.
In Bill C-48 we have a 10 per cent basic royalty right off the top and a 40 per cent incremental royalty. The government gets its pound of flesh. On top of that there is income tax. It is not as though the government were not getting anything. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources also said that the back-in provision is needed to capture so-called economic rent, but fiscal measures are already included in Bill C-48 which are used for this purpose, namely the 10 per cent basic royalty and the progressive incremental royalty. The economic rental argument is fundamentally different from the tax incentive argument which was originally used to defend the retroactive back-in. The fact is that the rationale used by the government is indefensible.
The proposed 25 per cent back-in provision is particularly difficult for a number of companies. This 25 per cent back-in provision is in addition to a 25 per cent interest already acquired by Petro-Canada under previous legislation. Under the 1977 amendments to the Canada oil and gas regulations, Petro-Canada obtained a 25 per cent interest in a number of prospects in the Canada lands. With the passage of Bill C-48, this right of Petro-Canada no longer exists and will be replaced by the 25 per cent retroactive Crown share.
Bill C-48 states that where Petro-Canada has acquired a 25 per cent interest after April 30, 1980, the back-in provision of Clause 27 will not apply. In other words, if Petro-Canada acquired the back-in after April 30, 1980, the Crown does not have the right to acquire a further 25 per cent interest. This measure was intended to avoid double dipping by the Crown during the transitional period. However, there are a number of cases-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I regret that the members present did not give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson) to continue, as he is one of the very few members of the House who has any knowledge of the oil and gas industry. It is an indication of how little the hon. members care about knowing the effects of the legislation that is now before us, how little they care about learning what the facts are and how little they care about what they are doing to the industry.


An hon. Member:: Where were you in committee?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member wants to interject, he has to do it loud enough for me to hear, otherwise I will not be able to respond to him.


An hon. Member:: What about your age?


Erik Nielsen: I still did not hear him, Mr. Speaker.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Baker:: The hon. member did not miss anything.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Calgary South passed to me a couple of sections from the universal declaration of human rights which he did not use in his speech today but which are very pertinent to our study of this bill. It is a declaration of human rights, which has been signed by Canada and most freedom-loving countries of the world. The first stipulation sets forth that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. The second stipulation is that no one shall arbitrarily be deprived of his property. Canada signed that universal declaration of human rights. Now in Bill C-48 we are doing precisely the opposite to the declaration that they signed.
The debate of the bill on second reading, Mr. Speaker, has been most informative, as it has highlighted what I believe to be the arrogance and the authoritarianism of the Liberal Party, the Liberal Party designed in the most unmistakeable terms. Every suggestion that has been advanced by the Progressive Conservative Party for the toning down of the harsh and rigorous provisions of Bill C-48 has been turned down by the Liberal majority in the House. At the same time, the left wing of the Liberal Party in the House, the NDP with scarcely a shred of independence left to it, did everything it could to make this socialist bill more socialist than it is. That is their record and that is their tarnished image and reputation. Of course, the NDP will only be satisfied with a measure embodying complete state control. That is true. That is a fact. Not one of them will stand up and deny that fact.


An hon. Member:: Why deny it?


Erik Nielsen: Did I hear a denial over there? No, I thought not. What they mean to do is to have a complete takeover of the oil and gas industry. From all indications, from my assessment, Mr. Speaker, this is what is waiting in the wings for us.
Meanwhile, the NDP has taken what comfort it could from this measure as an opening gambit in the government's takeover and confiscation policy.
The debate to this point has been an illustration of the divine right of Liberalism to manage-or to mismanage-the affairs of the nation, and to impose on Parliament and the country whatever new theoretical aberration springs from the minds of the policy-shapers in the bowels of the Langevin Building across on Wellington Street.
I am disturbed as a Yukoner and as a Canadian. I am disturbed-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member does not have to keep repeating that.


Erik Nielsen: I am disturbed by the monstrosity-they never get disturbed over there and they certainly would not get disturbed over a bill such as this that is so close to their bosoms. I know what they will do, Mr. Speaker. They will stand against the government on this bill.


An hon. Member:: That is right.


Erik Nielsen: It is not because they do not like the bill for what it is. They will stand with the Conservative Party against the Liberals, but not for the same reason.


An hon. Member:: That is for sure.


Erik Nielsen: They will stand with us because the bill does not go far enough. They want the whole ball of wax. They want to nationalize the whole issue.


An hon. Member:: Keep it up.


Erik Nielsen: That is pure socialism. That is what they stand for. These hon. Grits-


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the Chair might, on our behalf, intervene and find out from the hon. member whether or not environmental protection or aboriginal rights is against the policy of the Conservative Party, as well as giving Canadians a window on the industry? It is a very important point.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Raymond John Skelly: Or is that too disturbing?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: I never cease to wonder at the ignorance of hon. members who pose questions such as that, whose familiarity with the lands that this legislation affect is almost nil. I could ask the hon. member who just posed the question whether he has ever been to the Northwest Territories.


Raymond John Skelly: Is that true of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar)?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, the hon. member did ask a question. I represent a riding that is intimately affected by this particular bill, environmental protection and aboriginal rights.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member, Mr. Speaker, would not know Old Crow from Nunatsiaq. The hon. member probably would not even know the direction in which to travel in order to get there. That is his mentality. He is not alone; he is in good company. Generally speaking, that is the southern mentality.


An hon. Member:: We know who is the old crow.


Erik Nielsen: I did not hear that interjection.


An hon. Member:: We know who is the old crow.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member like me to tell him where Old Crow is?


An hon. Member:: I said that we know who is the old crow.
December 3, 1981


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members laugh, but actually it is the name of an individual who was highly respected by the people of the village of Old Crow. It is from the name of that old gentleman, who has long since deceased, that Old Crow got its name. The hon. member should not make fun of the ancestor of the Indian people of the village of Old Crow from whom its name comes.
These lands, this appellation that the government puts on Canada lands-and I must say to my colleagues, "do not get sucked in by that phrase Canada lands"-the lands of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, were not known as Canada lands before the provinces were carved from the Northwest Territories of that day. The subliminal attempt of the government to condition the minds of Canadians to think of these lands above the 60th parallel as Canada lands, hence belonging to all Canadians-to use the expression of the hon. member who interrupted me a moment ago-is just another window on the minds of the nation. It is an attempt to manipulate the public mentality to the point of believing that these, in truth, are Canada lands held in trust for all Canadians and that Yukoners, those in Nunatsiaq and those in the western Arctic, will never enjoy the fulfilment of their manifest destiny, as half the citizens of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are enjoying those lands and those resources in the fullest of time as provinces in this confederation of ours. That is the purpose of using that phrase "Canada lands". As I stated, it is a subliminal attempt to condition and then to manipulate, but again it is a product of the Langevin Building and the Michael Kirbys of the world. I am greatly disturbed as a Canadian by this attempt to expropriate arbitrarily these lands, the nature of the exercise, and the failure of the government to consult either the industry or the governments of Yukon and Northwest Territories. It was a blatant disregard of the rights of the people of the area, including native Canadians. There was not one word of consultation with the elected legislatures of the two territories before the legislation was introduced-laught that one off! There was not one word of consultation with native organizations in either of the northern territories-laugh that one off!


Mr. Keeper:: Who voted against consent?


Erik Nielsen: I hear the hon. member, but I am sorry I do not know the name of his riding.


Cyril Keeper: It was the Tories.


Erik Nielsen: I take it the hon. member means the motion requiring the consent of aboriginal peoples with respect to any changes to the Constitution concerning aboriginal rights.


Cyril Keeper: Right on!


Erik Nielsen: He should look at the amendment, he should look at what they did. Those hon. members introduced an amendment which required provincial legislatures to rule on any matter of change in the Constitution affecting aboriginal rights. When it came to Yukon and the Northwest Territories,
Canada Oil and Gas Act
they did not choose the elected legislatures to be the deciders; it was the federal government. So much for their respect for the rights of northern Canadians; they bypassed them completely. That is why I voted against the amendment. Native Canadians feel betrayed by this bill to the same extent and with the same depth of feeling as they feel betrayed by the constitutional agreement and by the amendment. The majority of the elected representatives of the Northwest Territorial Legislative Assembly are native. They bypassed them with their amendment. What on earth do they exist for in Yukon and Northwest Territories if they are to be bypassed? Are they to be a mere rubber stamp to be ignored consistently?


Ian Deans: Why did you not offer a subamendment?


Erik Nielsen: I just finished explaining it.


Ian Deans: We would have been happy to accept one.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) knows.


Ian Deans: Instead of always being on the attack, why not be positive?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member would just zip his lip and await my reply, in a moment-


Ian Deans: I think I will ask a question.


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member like to speak? I will follow him.


Ian Deans: Yes, I would.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) yields the floor now, he will not be recognized after.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Why did you tell him, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. That would be an interesting discussion after ten o'clock. Now we will hear the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: In the interests of truth and of full information, I am sure the House would want to hear the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain and give unanimous consent to my continuing afterwards. If the Chair would put the question in that way-


Mr. Evans:: We will let him ask a question.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member wants to ask a question, let him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: As was suggested by the hon. member for Yukon, the Chair must seek unanimous consent. If there is unanimous consent, anything can be done. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 3, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act


Mr. Cousineau:: Let him ask a question.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply because the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) encouraged me to ask him a question on the record. If the hon. member did not like the amendment which we placed before the House asking for the consent of native peoples north of the sixtieth parallel respecting any matter pertaining directly to their affairs within the Constitution of Canada, as it will ultimately turn out to be once it is sent back here by the British Parliament, rather than simply rising and voting against it, why did the hon. member not do as we did when we found the amendment of the official opposition regarding Quebec deficient? Why did he not offer either an amendment or enter into a discussion with us to make an amendment to our proposal, which would have brought it into conformity with what he thinks is in the best interests of the people he represents? Thereby he would have allowed the House of Commons to deal with the issue in a way which would have been both honest and responsive to what he feels. I do not deny that he feels strongly that there would be a more appropriate way to deal with the problems of native and aboriginal peoples in the areas of Yukon and Nunatsiaq.
I am somewhat puzzled that the hon. member would decide to make a speech tonight about an amendment which was placed before the House of Commons two days ago and voted on yesterday afternoon. He said nothing about it at the time it was before the House, but tonight he rose and made objection to the content of the amendment when he knew full well that, in the normal spirit of co-operation, we would have been delighted to have taken into consideration any legitimate concern he might have felt. I am quite positive my good friends and colleagues, the hon. members of the New Democratic Party who represent native communities in every part of Canada, would have looked very, very seriously at any sensible proposal. I can only assume-and I put this to the hon. member quite honestly and sincerely-the reason why he did not do that was that he did not think of it at the time, and the reason he is doing it now is that he is attempting to make political mileage, which I am quite sure he will not succeed in doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when that question is measured by the inch, it has to be a record by any standard in the House of Commons.


Ian Deans: It is also not bad. Answer it.


Erik Nielsen: How does one answer a question by the inch?


Ian Deans: Try answering it by the yard.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member will not even let me respond. Why was he so paranoid? Why was he and his party so paranoid and so obsessed with the idea that above the 60th parallel only native people live? Are there no other northern Canadians there? Their amendment was in the form it was because of their mentality. I might point out, with respect, that
the hon. member for Nunatsiaq was not in his seat. It makes me wonder whether he was consulted.


Ian Deans: Oh yes, he was.


Erik Nielsen: If he had been, he would have told the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain, or whoever was responsible for drafting the amendment, that indeed there are non-native Canadians living above the 60th parallel. They should have thought of that when they drafted the amendment. They should have been alive to the fact that they are legislative assemblies populated by elected representatives in both territories. What they did for the provinces in the amendment, they could have done just as easily for the two Territories. They could have passed those legislative assemblies the same power they sought to pass to provincial legislatures. To be fair to them, the reason is that they did not think of it. If I have complained once in the House, I have complained a hundred times that, through no fault of their own-perhaps it is only the fault of our historic development-the southern Canadian mentality does not reach above the 60th parallel; they do not know what is there.


Ian Deans: Would the hon. member accept one more short question?


Erik Nielsen: Sure, I do not mind.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair would need some guidance on whether this is a discussion between two members or whether we ought to be discussing the bill that is before the House.


Ian Deans: Given that the hon. member claims for himself that marvellous insight into the affairs of northern Canada- and I do not deny that he has insight-why did he not choose to move an amendment that would have given to those elected persons in northern Canada, the powers that he now claims they ought to have had?


Erik Nielsen: Insight into northern affairs, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question. You are practising to be a cabinet minister.


Erik Nielsen: For however short a time it is, I have been there. The hon. member has not and probably never will. I lived there. I have no more insight about Hamilton Mountain than has the hon. member for Nunatsiaq.


Ian Deans: Why did you not move an amendment?


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member had read the House order, he would know that the amendment was deemed to have been put at ten o'clock. There was no opportunity to amend it because of that House order, and he knows that.
By way of a counterquestion, I can put it to the hon. member that if he had been really sincere, he would have come to me and would have said, "Do you believe that this is good
December 3, 1981

for northern Canadians? Have you any suggestions to make about how it could be made palatable and acceptable both to northern Canadians and to the government? Have you any suggestions about how we can design this so that it will be acceptable?"
He did not do that, Mr. Speaker. I have very grave doubts- although I seem to recall that he indicated that he did-that he even consulted the hon. member for Nunatsiaq about the wording of that amendment. It only went half the distance, and I think they know now that there was a very grave omission in that amendment. I do not think that the New Democratic Party, or the present composition of that party, will forget in future that there are elected legislatures in the north. In future, when they address subjects of that nature, they will make sure to treat those legislatures in the same way they would treat provincial legislatures. They have learned a lesson.
I say that the native people of northern Canada feel betrayed at a time when native claims are being negotiated. This bill can only bring about needless complications. Passage of this bill at the present time will only add to the complexities of native claims and will only make settlement of them more difficult. That was made very clear by the native organizations that appeared and testified before the committee.
I have said before that Yukoners regard this bill as a gigantic land grab of Yukon and Northwest Territories by the government. The Progressive Conservative has always hoped that these territories would one day become provinces. What will happen when that day comes? What will happen if the people of Yukon and Western Arctic decide by a referendum that they wish to join confederation as provinces and petition the federal government to that effect? What happens when those resources have been exploited by the government, not for the benefit of the Yukoners who stand to gain absolutely nothing and not for the financial benefit of all Canadians or even northern Canadians, but for the financial benefit of the Liberal government?
We are witnessing the curious spectacle of a government which has shown no ability to run those operations already under its control, setting out to engage in operations which require a high degree of skill and know-how which, as has been pointed out by the hon. member for Calgary South, this government certainly does not possess and which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his parliamentary secretary have not displayed, even to my limited knowledge of the industry. The mess the government made of the budget can only lead one to this conclusion.
This is a government which cannot even run the Post Office, a relatively simple operation, yet it claims to be able to run the highly technical oil and gas industry in a highly competitive world. It could not run the Post Office and so had to get rid of it. It is a government which not only cannot make the trains run on time but cannot even make them run at all, yet it sets out to bring in new oil and gas supplies.
It is a government which took a healthy economy and allowed it to run down, to be destroyed, while the ministers
Adjournment Debate
responsible and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) were flitting about from pillar to post at public expense. Now it expects to produce a healthy oil and gas industry. This is beyond credulity, Mr. Speaker. Meanwhile, those areas where the government has a responsibility and could show leadership, such as conservation and alternate energy sources, are being neglected. Member after member has risen in this House to protest the arrogant and dictatorial nature of this legislation. There has been no reaction from the government, except one of profound boredom, unless an hon. member happens to make an amusing point. The minister is not here, the parliamentary secretary does not listen and the others just sit there, dumb.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: That expression is parliamentary and it happens to be true.
The bill in itself is bad enough and dictatorial powers are bad enough in a country that still calls itself a free country, but statism and nationalization masquerading under the glib term of Canadianization-another one of those subliminal tags-are a betrayal of every single principle of a free economy.
All these things, bad enough in themselves, are immeasurably worse when one thinks of these powers in the hands of the particular group operating the federal government at the present time. I shudder to think how much worse it could become if, by even the most nightmarish stretch of the imagination, that power were to pass into the hands of the little red rump. This government has made no secret of its determination to manipulate the controls of the Canadian economy. It is a group which engaged in a secret uranium cartel, the details of which cannot be known because the Prime Minister swore all the participants to secrecy and appointed one of them, Senator Austin, to the cabinet where his lips are sealed as long as he wants to remain there. This same Senator Austin, who is apparently concerned with the rights of native Canadians under the Constitution-that is his new responsibility-has said that he is in agony over the removal of native rights from that agreement. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker! This will undoubtedly bring great consolation to those native Canadians who have been left out and who have been betrayed.
I wish I had another 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted, pursuant to Standing Order 40.
[Stage Direction]
December 3, 1981
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity provided me under Standing Order 43 of the House of Commons to pursue a topic I raised in question period on November 23, 1981. The topic was Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited. One of the tasks of the special parliamentary committee on national trading corporations was to look into how Canada can increase its export trade and thereby help small and medium-sized businesses. The special parliamentary committee had difficulty obtaining information on the Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited.
Before setting up any new corporations or systems, it is always wise to see what existing systems are doing and whether or not they are successful. Because I did not receive a satisfactory answer from witnesses appearing before the committee, I tabled a question on the Order Paper dated June 19, 1981. Question 2,559 specifically asked:
What was the date of incorporation of the Export Finance Corporation of Canada Limited and what was its purpose?
Did the corporation meet its obligations and goals and what is its present status?
The answer given to me by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada was that such a corporation was federally incorporated on June 4, 1959, under a special act of Parliament assented to on that day. The department stated:
The object of the corporation was to Finance and facilitate exports and imports and the exchange of goods and services between Canada and any nation of the Commonwealth of Nations or other nations, and between agencies or residents of Canada and such nations, or agencies or residents thereof.
The department's answer went on to say that in so far as the act was concerned, the company had met its legal obligations by having filed its financial statement and annual summary for the year ending March 31, 1981, with the director of corporations. The Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, however, was unable to comment on the performance of the company with regard to its goals and objectives.
Not receiving an answer to my tabled question, I raised the question during question period in the House on November 23, 1981. I would like to quote my question from Hansard at page 13079:
Would the minister inform this house on the success or failure of this corporation in meeting its objectives in Financing and facilitating exports and imports?
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs replied:
Madam Speaker, of course it is not a simple matter to determine a corporation's ability or inability to achieve its objectives.
-there is no legal or even political obligation that would allow us to make sure whether or not it is meeting its objectives successfully.
As a parliamentarian in this House of Commons, I feel I have the right to ask for such information and to be provided with the accurate data. I pursued my question further. On December 1, 1981, I received further information from the
deputy minister addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). The deputy minister confirmed that such a corporation was incorporated on June 4, 1959. His reply states that the corporation was given ample financing powers to achieve its objectives. At the time of the incorporation, the capital stocks consisted of ten million shares with a par value of $5 each. The deputy minister went on to say that the corporation is currently dormant. The current capital base stands at $20,000 and is owned by seven major Canadian chartered banks. The board of directors, which meets once a year, consists of 14 officers from these banks and is currently chaired by Mr. J. J. Dowsley from the Toronto-Dominion Bank. If the corporation is dormant, why did I receive, on form 3, an annual summary under Section 133 of the Canada Corporations Act, dated March 31, 1981, from the active board of directors, 14 of them to be exact? The answer from the deputy minister goes on to state:
In April, 1968, the Board of Directors of the corporation decided after consultation with the Minister of Finance and the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, to stop accepting new business due to the imminent incorporation of EDC in 1969, and to the pattern and direction of short-term interest rates in the New York market that made Fixed rate medium and long-term export Financing rather difFicult for the corporation.
If the board of directors in 1968, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, and the Export Credits Insurance Corporation decided to stop accepting new business due to the incorporation of EDC in 1969, then how can the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Canada state that the company has met its legal obligations by having filed with the director of corporations its financial statement and annual summary for the year ending March 31, 1981?
I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. McCauley) whether the seven major Canadian chartered banks are using the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. as a gimmick to avoid payment of taxes to the government?
There are just too many unanswered questions surrounding the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. Therefore, I appeal to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) of Canada to tell the House what is the status of this corporation since it stopped accepting new business since 1969, and why is it still in existence? Have the banks benefited from any tax write-offs by keeping it in existence even though it is doing no business at present? Since Canada is losing its fair share of exports on the world market, will this corporation be reactivated to finance and facilitate exports?


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis). He knows quite a bit about the subject and there is no point in my reviewing what he already knows.
As he has stated, the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. was incorporated by special act of Parliament in 1959. It was founded by the major Canadian banks. Through a
December 3, 1981

series of mergers, the present shareholders are the Bank of Montreal, the National Bank of Canada, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Mercantile Bank of Canada and the Royal Bank of Canada.
The underlying intention of the special act was to involve the chartered banks in medium-term export financing. In 1968 the operations of the Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. became inactive owing to prevailing circumstances at that time.
Section 6 of the act includes the following wording:
The corporation, in the furtherance of its objects and not excluding the other powers necessary to their achievement, may
(A)	Purchase, discount, rediscount, sell, negotiate with or without its endorsement or guarantee notes, drafts, cheques;
(B)	Purchase and sell securities, coin, bullion and exchange and guarantee securities;
(C)	Make or underwrite a loan or a series of loans;
(D)	Participate with buyer and seller in an export-import transaction;
(E)	Deal with financing applications for resale to a lender within or outside Canada on a commission or fee basis;
(F)	Purchase with its funds preferred or common stock in any other corporation.
The corporation was active until 1969 when circumstances were such that the corporation ceased active operations, but has maintained its corporate existence by making yearly filings of its annual summaries and financial statements with the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Each year since that date the directors have discussed the advisability of reactivating the corporation. They intend to keep it in existence until such time as it can be usefully reactivated. While the corporation was active, it operated successfully. As an example, the 1963 annual report of the chairman of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation, now replaced by the Export Development Corporation, indicated that during that year, the Export Credits Insurance Corporation sold to Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. $27 million of notes it held which were guaranteed by the Export Insurance Corporation. In 1964 similar sales of notes were made to Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. in the amount of $23 million.
In April 1969 the president of Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. spoke with officials of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation concerning the pending creation of the Export Development Corporation. It would appear that interest rates and the replacement of the Export Credits Insurance Corporation by the Export Development Corporation were among the factors causing Export Finance Corporation of Canada, Ltd. to become inactive. The corporation remains in good standing as a special act corporation.


THE BUDGET-EFFECT ON INSURANCE POLICIES AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak tonight on the effect of the budget on insurance
Adjournment Debate
policy holders, insurance companies and RRSP holders. I placed a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) on December 2 regarding the effect of the budget's new tax measures on the ability of average Canadians to save through insurance and RRSP policies. The parliamentary secretary answered only the part of my question dealing with RRSPs. But what about insurance policies?
I was pleased to see that, on November 19, a Liberal backbencher, posed the same question to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the minister stated:
I would be happy to consider any refinements that can be possible in these measures.
So I hope we will be hearing about some of these refinements tonight because there is considerable concern across the country at this devastating new tax.
Changes are needed now because average Canadians simply cannot afford these new taxes. They will cause higher unemployment, greater reliance on government operated pension plans, more welfare recipients, less self-initiative in general, because people can no longer attempt to fend for themselves, and here, Mr. Speaker, I offer a few examples of what individuals and insurance companies are saying about the new tax proposals:
As women now outlive men by an average of six or seven years, and inflation has led to a diminution of their available resources, industry has pointed out that 80 per cent of individual life insurance policies in 1980 were bought by people with incomes of under $25,000. If working guidelines around the arbitrary application of the accrual tax concept on both insurance and annuity contracts cannot be worked out a large supply of long-term capital for national development will disappear. Personal initiative to province income maintenance on death and retirement will be discouraged, leading to increased pressure on government and will aggravate Canada's ability to compete in world trade. The insurance industry will not be able to sustain its field or home office staffs. This will increase unemployment and, more importantly, harm millions of Canadians who cannot afford accountants and lawyers, but rely on our agents for counsel.
That is agents of insurance companies, Mr. Speaker. Here is a statement by a life insurance salesman who lives in Winnipeg. He states:
I am bound to protest against the recent budget proposals which single out for attack whole life insurance, which is the best means of protecting dependants against the premature death of the main supporter of the family.
As you know, many people, including government, have been expressing great concern about the elderly poor, especially widows. To the extent that new tax measures discourage the purchase of permanent life insurance there will be no more elderly poor and more widows who will be dependent on the taxpayer for support. I know of no other advanced country which attempts to tax the income on life insurance savings, an income which no one can touch during the lifetime of the policyholder, and if it is touched under the present system, the gain will be taxed. In other advanced countries the provision of protection to dependants through life insurance is positively encouraged, not discouraged.
As you know, permanent life insurance provides a means for gathering millions of small amounts of savings into large investment pools which have done much in the past to develop Canada. The inhibiting of these savings will slow down the development process.
If the government is really serious about being positive in its attempt to develop this country, it should be seeking to encourage savings through life insurance rather than by taking negative action to scare people away from protecting their families.

December 3, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Also, Mr. Speaker, I have received this from a constituent who is very concerned about these new tax measures, and she points out:
I can appreciate their attempt to close tax loopholes for the rich, but not threaten the financial security of millions of ordinary Canadians while all they are trying to do is save for retirement or an untimely death which could bring a great hardship on a young family.
Another constituent, an employee of an insurance firm, states:
There are three portions of the proposals which concern me particularly:
1.	The budget would require a policyholder to report accrued investment income on his or her policy or annuity every three years even though no income is actually received.
2.	A portion of many life insurance policies will be taxed on death-a proposal similar to one made in 1977 which on closer examination received the disrepute it deserved.
3.	In addition, the budget proposes that the amounts paid by employers for health and dental benefits be included in the taxable income of employees.
If deferred profit-sharing plans are virtually eliminated, this will affect many small-business owners and their families who are trying to build adequate retirement plans. Non-related DPSP employees will have their contributions reduced up to $2,000.
Interest on borrowed money for deferred income plans such as RRSPs and DPSPs will no longer be deductible.
It is vital that a concerted effort be made to persuade the government to desist from its apparent plan to discourage individual estate and financial planning. Many Canadians are proud enough to want to be totally independent and not have to rely on government welfare and pension plans, which are inadequate, unreliable and costly.
I hope we hear some words of encouragement from the parliamentary secretary tonight that the government is considering dropping these taxes on insurance policies.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to respond tonight to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) because there are some misconceptions.
Some information has not been widely disseminated with regard to these two topics, RRSPs and whole life insurance, and I think it should be.
First of all, the budget makes no change in the amounts deductible as RRSP contributions. The only difference is that now there is no special incentive for borrowing money to make RRSP contributions, since the interest on money borrowed to put into an RRSP will no longer be deductible from noninvestment income. Individuals using their own funds, however, and investing these in RRSPs are not affected. Canadians can still obtain great benefits from contributing to RRSPs because of the deduction for the contribution itself. A person, for example, contributing $3,500 to an RRSP who is in a 25 per cent tax bracket will save $875 in taxes in the year that that contribution is made, which is a major saving.
The tax on accrual of investment income earned with life insurance policies will not affect the retirement savings of most Canadians. The investment income on life insurance policies purchased through RRSPs will continue to be sheltered from tax. For other policies many low and middle-income people will find that the investment income will not be taxed because of the $1,000 investment income deduction which is currently in the tax system. This deduction ensures that for taxpayers with no other investment income any amount of investment income from life insurance policies up to $1,000 will be exempt from tax in a year.
It is important to note that before the budget, many lower and middle-income individuals had to pay tax when they surrendered life insurance policies before death because all of the investment income was taxed at one time when it was taken out of the whole life policy. Now that income can be reported as it accrues, and it may escape tax completely because it is covered by the $ 1,000 per year investment income deduction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.19 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).

Friday, December 4, 1981
The House at 11 a.m.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, whereas as the font of all Canadian wisdom, our own Delphic oracle, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), has made it clear that Canada's high interest rates are not the fault of the big spending policies of the government but are somehow our fault, and in fact are primarily the fault of one poor but omnipotent reporter in the press gallery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House express its deep and reverent gratitude to the Prime Minister for his latest pronouncement, which indicates clearly that, for the man who says he cares so deeply about gaps, the gap between himself and the truth has not narrowed.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous, consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, 80,000 fewer young Canadians are employed now than at this time last year. This deplorable situation has arisen because of many years of gross neglect of our real problems by a Liberal government preoccupied with everything and anything but economic and industrial planning. Band-aid solutions and temporary make-work programs are not the answer. Long-range planning priorizing research and development is. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this government come to its senses and immediately appoint a minister whose sole responsibility is research and development and that the entire field of research and development in Canada be given top priority.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that thousands of workers across Canada have lost jobs because of this government's stupid mismanagement of the economy, and in light of the fact that prior to the November 12 budget workers who lost jobs through permanent plant closures could convert retiring allowances into RRSPs without being subject to tax, a possibility the budget has now foreclosed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the Minister of Finance rescind any new tax burdens on workers who have been victimized by permanent lay-offs.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the terms of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas CMHC quite rightly is conducting a sales campaign on the properties it owns in order to recoup its heavy costs from these properties, and whereas this campaign, again quite rightly, includes special marked-down mortgage rates as an incentive for investors buying large groups of properties, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House urges Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation
(a)	to continue its sales campaign to restore its financial health;
(b)	to consider expanding its sales incentives so that individual buyers can get the same marked-down mortgage rates; and
(c)	to consider including current residents whose mortgages are backed up by CMHC so that they too can have marked-down rates and other incentives on

December 4, 1981
their renewals to help them keep their homes instead of dumping them back on toCMHC.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, it is appropriate that the House should be dealing with this motion today because it coincides with the release by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the latest statistics showing another sharp decline in housing starts. Today we are facing the worst housing crisis in the history of the country. It is perhaps without parallel since the Second World War. Today Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation reported another 30 per cent decline over one year in the number of housing starts.
We are told by none other than the minister responsible for housing himself, in a document which was leaked-the minister later tried to disown it but it has his signature on it; it was submitted to his cabinet colleagues-that we need 220,000 housing starts a year. We are told by the same authority that the best we can hope for is 135,000 housing starts. That is a shortfall of 80,000 housing starts. Included in that is the critical situation facing the country in rental accommodation.
We are told by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and by Statistics Canada that the major metropolitan areas of the country are now facing a zero vacancy rate. We have already arrived at that unhappy state in the city of Oshawa. We are close to it in the city of Toronto. We are almost there in the city of Calgary. If anyone reads this morning's Citizen, he will see we have practically arrived there in the city of Ottawa.
What does that mean? Let me again quote the authority of the Minister of Housing as contained in that famous leaked document. The minister predicted that this situation, this dire shortfall in rental accommodation in the country, would create a black-market situation. He even went so far as to talk about key money.
Anybody who remembers World War II will know what key money is. Key money is that black-market device whereby, if you are desperate for an apartment, you go to the doorman, give him $100, and in exchange for that $100 pay-off he will advise you that there is an apartment available. He will then take you to show you the apartment. For another tip, he will arrange to give you a lease on that apartment, in exchange for which you have to pay him every month you are there.
That is the black-market situation we are facing in this country which has been created by the deliberate negligence of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister predicted to his cabinet colleagues that not only are we going to have a black-market situation, but a situation where young people will have to stay with their parents, where people will have to double up, share apartments and share kitchens. The only parallel you can find to that situation today is in the Soviet Union. We have a Moscow kind of housing situation in Canada today.
What do we get from the minister of housing? He tells the young people of this country to lower their expectations, to sit on orange crates, to go back to the standards we had 20 years ago. What a shameful performance from this minister! What a shameful performance from this government! This government stands indicted by its own negligence. I can refer to none other than the motion put forward by one of their own supporters. If the Minister of Housing had any principles he would stand in his place today, say he has failed, and that he will resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Resign.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, it is apparent that the hon. member has referred to a document prepared in preparation for the budget. I am very pleased that he has joined with me in my concern expressed to the cabinet which was responsible for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) introducing into the budget $350 million to address the very problems that the hon. member raised. I am very pleased that he identified the question of rentals because it is that kind of program that this budget addresses.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support this motion that has just been put before the House, 100 per cent. I say to the minister who has just spoken that with the profit figures of the banks which are out today, if the government will put an excess profit tax on the banks, just to leave profits at the same high level they were last year, it will have $700 million additional revenue that could be put into housing which the people of Canada need. That would be concrete action.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It being 11.15 a.m., I must interrupt the debate for oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I am sure the minister is aware that this morning Statistics Canada issued a report which indicates how badly the situation with respect to
December 4, 1981

employment is going in this country as the days go by. The minister will know that the report this morning indicated that there are 40,000 jobs lost in one month alone, which brings it to a total of 128,000 jobs lost in this country since August, and that there are 37,000 more people this month looking for work. Will the minister bring into the House revisions to his budget which will allow for the expansion of investment and the creation of jobs? If he will, when, and if not, why not?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member obviously observed that the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate dropped in Canada according to the statistics this morning.


An hon. Member:: The minister brags about it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I believe that the important thing is that instead of having an increasing seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, we have a decreasing unemployment rate for this month.


An hon. Member:: By how much?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And that compares, it seems to me, at least favourably with the United States, where there has been a sudden increase in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in this month.
As the hon. member has recounted his statistics, Madam Speaker, he might have put them in a perspective so as to note that there is a decline in the seasonally adjusted rate this month, in contrast with the United States where there is an increase. The hon. member has asked about the government's intention with respect to the budget and its economic plans. I would tell the hon. member that the strategy in the budget is intended to reduce inflation and inflationary expectations. In my view, that is the best possible way to provide for resumed economic growth and job creation in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Tell that to one million Canadians.


THE BUDGET
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, it is tough to be seasonally adjusted if you are unemployed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: That is the fact of the matter. Madam Speaker, the minister has also received representations from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They have asked the minister to reopen the budget and look for revision in ten specific areas, chief of which is with respect to interest deductibility so as to allow for the expansion of investment and
Oral Questions
the creation of more jobs by small and medium-sized businesses. I should like to ask the minister two questions in connection with their brief to him. Will he give consideration to all of their points but, in particular, will he give consideration to a revision in the limitation of interest deductibility?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have heard the views expressed by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. I will have an opportunity to deal in detail with the representations that have been made, many of which are based upon misinformation. I believe that once the full information gets out to the small-business men in Canada, they may take a different view of the accuracy of the representations that are coming from the leadership of that association.
I have already stated that I was prepared to listen to representations coming forward with respect to the impact of the budget, Madam Speaker. I indicated that in the House, and it applies as well to the measure relating to interest deductibility. I am quite prepared to examine the impact of that measure and to lay out further facts which would indicate that the notion that, in some way, the changes will impact heavily upon investment in Canada is greatly exaggerated. I believe we ought to keep that in perspective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF PROVISIONS ON EMPLOYMENT IN INSURANCE INDUSTRY
David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, the insurance industry in this country employs in the order of about 60,000 people, and tens of thousands of others depend upon the viability and strength of the insurance industry. The insurance industry, as well, has made representation to the minister asking him to revise those aspects of his budget which interfere with the stability of their business.
There are thousands and thousands of jobs now at risk in the insurance business. These people know figures, they know facts. They want to know whether or not the minister will give consideration to the things they need to ensure that their businesses remain stable and that their jobs are maintained. Will the minister look at their brief and bring in revisions to the budget which will allow the insurance industry to survive?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I can only repeat that I am open to suggestions from the hon. member as to how the situation can be improved.


Erik Nielsen: Do you want to meet with our caucus tonight?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would say, however, that we will have an opportunity in the House of Commons to consider all these measures in detail. They have to come before the Committee of

December 4, 1981
Oral Questions
the Whole. It will be possible then to hear the views of hon. members and to provide the full information which is required in order to make a judgment on the points the hon. member raised this morning.


RETROACTIVITY OF PROVISIONS AFFECTING RETIREMENT INCOME
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my questions are also addressed to the Minister of Finance. If he is asking for suggestions from our party, he should withdraw the whole budget.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: While the minister has been away the budget has come under heavy attack, even from members of his own caucus. Many budget proposals are unfair because they are retroactive. They impose heavy tax penalties on people who made their plans in good faith. To alleviate the real anxiety of many Canadians, will the minister grandfather those provisions which restrict income tax deductions on pension rollovers, severance pay and income annuities, particularly for farmers because it is often the only retirement plan they have, so that people may plan in some confidence for their retirement? Will he state the changes he might make today?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member suggested that I withdraw the budget. I want to assure her that this is not a Jerusalem budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


APPLICATION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, it has been suggested to me that it is a Damascus budget. Since the minister did not answer, since he will tell his Liberal caucus but he will not tell the House of Commons, I will proceed to my next question.
A second major criticism is that under the budget the minister is collecting taxes from people before they have the money to pay them, forcing them to banks or into bankruptcy. For instance, the minister is taxing income accumulating in life insurance policies before it is paid. He is taxing capital gains on the sale of property before payments are actually made. Where does the minister expect Canadians to find the cash to pay his new taxes on income they have not yet received?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jarvis:: Borrow it from the banks!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the budget debate resumes on Monday. We will be in Committee of the Whole in due course on all these measures.


An hon. Member:: Where will you be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not my intention to debate the over 122 measures which are in the income tax changes, each day on orders of the day. I assure you, Madam Speaker, that is not my intention.


BANKS AND BANKING
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance said that his budget is not a Jerusalem budget; it is certainly not a New Jerusalem budget!
Almost all the bank profits are now in, with Toronto-Dominion up 40 per cent; Royal up 50 per cent; and today the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce up 62 per cent. If the government levied an excess profits tax that would still leave the profits of those banks at the same high level that they were at last year, the government would have an additional $700 million. Why will the minister not do that and bring mortgage relief to the thousands of Canadian families who need it from coast to coast?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question is completely rhetorical. He is not asking for any information, he is making a little speech. And I thought it was all right.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO BANK ACT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister obviously does not care one whit about the thousands of families who are losing their homes. That is clear day after day in the House. Last week he said he did not have the authority to require the banks to put up mortgage money that the average family could afford. In light of the truly exorbitant bank profits, will the minister now commit the government to changing the Bank Act to make it mandatory for the banks to bear their share of the burden for our housing problems and provide mortgage money for the average family at rates that family can afford. If so, we on this side of the House will guarantee passage of that bill within a matter of days, if not hours.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: high interest rates. That is a fact, but the hon. member refuses to acknowledge that fact.
The hon. member says, "You know, if you bring in a bill to discipline the banks, I will support it." I do not take the hon. member's suggestion as serious. When we brought in a bill to put taxes on the oil and gas companies, did we get any help from the NDP? When I moved in the budget to deal with the tax expenditures, as he had been requesting for weeks before the budget, did he stand up and vote for that? Not at all.


THE ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I can tell the minister that, if in addition to closing a few loopholes he had also not reduced the tax on the two richest categories, he might have got some support from this side of the House.
I will put my last question to the minister. Since we now have 900,000 plus unemployed-I am sure that touches him very deeply-and we have a need for an additional 50,000 housing units in this country and there are unemployed Canadians in almost every sector, will he consider bringing in special measures that will create the houses that are needed, and that will provide jobs for men and women who would rather be working and paying taxes than collecting unemployment insurance?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes a suggestion, and then, if one accepts it, he always adds further requests, as he did during the whole constitutional debate. That is why I am a bit nervous about acceding to any of his proposals with respect to the banks or anything else. If I brought in a bill to discipline the banks he would say, "You have not included the credit unions, and I will not support you until you do that."


MINES AND MINING
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday Eldorado Nuclear Limited announced a shutdown of its operation at Beaverlodge mine in Uranium City, Saskatchewan, throwing 830 employees out of work and devastating Uranium City. That is a tragedy indeed. The uranium support and supply centre of Saskatoon will also suffer very serious and adverse consequences as a result of this move. In the past Eldorado kept Beaverlodge operative when the price of uranium was $6 per pound. It had a device for stockpiling through Uranium Canada.
Oral Questions
In view of the tragedy that will befall northern Saskatchewan, will the minister impose a moratorium on the shutdown of this mine so that we can examine the alternatives and consider the viability of the mine? This is especially important in view of the fact that Eldorado has recently moved 45 new families in and has made significant capital expenditures on this operation at a time when we are suffering unprecedented lay-offs in the country.


Erik Nielsen: Get the old cartel going.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the decision has been taken by Eldorado with a great deal of concern and a great deal of consideration. As a matter of fact the decision has been taken not to close the mine until June, 1982, in order that there will be ample time for the necessary measures to be taken to ensure that the families concerned will be able to find other employment and find another-


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Marc Lalonde: -location. In the mining industry there is demand for competent workers, if my hon. friend does not know about it. This is a decision which has been taken as a last resort. It would cost the company over $500 million over the next five years to continue operation of this mine.
As my hon. friend knows, mining is non-renewable. Mining at Uranium City is in an area where ore is declining. There has been a decline of the quality of the ore by something like 40 per cent; plus there has been a decline in the price by 50 per cent. Two other mines under private ownership in the area have closed in the last few years. Eldorado has tried to continue the operation of this mine as long as possible.
I have made personal examination of the issue. Unfortunately, I have had to come to the conclusion that the Eldorado decision was the right one in the circumstances.


REQUEST THAT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE BE ALLOWED TO ASSESS SITUATION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I for one, am not prepared to accept the answer of the minister. I would suggest to the minister that this decision would not have taken place if the mine were located in the minister's riding of Outremont. It is reminiscent of the fiasco which occurred when the government wasted hundreds of millions of dollars in the relocation of the refinery at Port Hope at the direction of the minister.


Some hon. Members:: That's right.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There are a number of questions which must be answered before a precipitous step of this sort can be taken. For example, the minister has indicated that the spot market is low. The fact is that Eldorado has a number of long-term contracts. At what price is uranium being sold at

December 4, 1981
Oral Questions
long-term contract? Other questions, indeed, involve the question of stockpiling-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member seems to be enumerating many items. I would like to know which one is the object of the question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, that is the problem. There are so many questions left unanswered by the minister that I will ask him the following question. Eldorado Nuclear is a Crown corporation which is accountable to Parliament. I think parliamentarians have a role in this matter. Will the minister not agree to forestall this closure to allow a parliamentary committee to make an independent assessment of the viability of the mine and the alternatives available to Eldorado in connection with this mine?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. gentleman that yesterday the President of Eldorado Nuclear Limited met with the Premier of Saskatchewan and has examined this issue. I would also like to tell the hon. member that I resent the kind of insinuation he has attributed on a purely partisan basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: What do you know about being partisan?


Marc Lalonde: As ministers of the Crown we are acting for all Canadians, and are trying to make decisions in the interests of all Canadians. The decision has been taken by Eldorado Nuclear on its own, as a Crown corporation.
I remind my friend that I am appearing before the parliamentary committee on national resources on Monday night. If he wishes Eldorado to be present, I would certainly be very happy to make arrangements for Eldorado to answer any questions my friend may have to ask. Therefore the hon. member does not have to make a big fuss about it. If the committee wants to hear Eldorado, Eldorado will be there on Monday night.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Ten minutes for 800 jobs.


THE BUDGET
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. On previous occasions, including yesterday, the minister told the House that information I presented with regard to CMHC being aware of certain budget information three days in advance of the budget was incorrect. Yesterday he completely denied that anyone outside government, namely, Studio S&B
in Montreal, knew anything about the budget in advance. I presume that the minister is aware that Ray Hession, President of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, has publicly stated that the facts which I gave were correct. I also presume he is aware that last night the CBC television news quoted the vice-president of CMHC as saying that my facts were substantially correct.
I therefore ask the minister, will he now change his story for the fourth or fifth time? Will he now tell the House exactly what did happen? Finally-


An hon. Member:: Will he tell the truth?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -will he resign his portfolio because he has displayed absolutely nothing else but total incompetence? He apparently does not even know one thing about what is going on inside his own department.


Erik Nielsen: Come clean!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the ad to which the hon. member has referred is one that I have in my hand. It is a document which stresses "attention to home owners". It has telephone numbers which they can call to solicit information on the budget material. This ad was published the day after the budget, and it was published in most newspapers the weekend after the budget was announced.


Erik Nielsen: We know all that.


Paul James Cosgrove: It was not delivered to the newspapers until after the Minister of Finance had completed his speech in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Paul James Cosgrove: The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials had charge of the security of this document-


An hon. Member:: What about S&B?


Paul James Cosgrove: -until such time as it was delivered to the newspapers after the speech. They were assisted by some employees of the firm of S&B in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: They were assisted by typesetters who assisted in setting up the document. It was prepared by CMHC in anticipation that the recommendations to the Minister of Finance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: -by me would be accepted and-


Erik Nielsen: Ah, ah!


Paul James Cosgrove: -would be in the budget as announced. When that was confirmed, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation authorized the release of those documents which
December 4, 1981

were in sealed envelopes until that time, to be distributed to the newspapers, as I have indicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But the printers had it before.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, in view of the tendency of the minister to go out on limbs and let himself be sawed off, I will not direct my supplementary question to him because I would not want him to fall again. I direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
It now seems that there is substantial evidence to indicate that the House may have been intentionally misled. I choose my words with regard to this matter as carefully as possible. In view of the admission of the president and the vice-president of CMHC that they had budget information in advance which they gave to S&B Studio in Montreal, also in advance of the budget, will the government support referring this matter to a parliamentary committee for a complete investigation of all the facts; and, if it will not support this, why will it not? If it has nothing to hide, why would it not support such a thing? Can the Prime Minister tell us now whether he will support such a thing so that the air will be cleared, or will he simply save time by asking for the resignation of an incompetent minister?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, if I were the hon. member I would not ask for the minister's resignation. I would ask him supplementary questions which the hon. member said might cause him to fall off the limb. Surely that is what the hon. member wants. He wants the minister to fall down. Why does he not ask him supplementary questions?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Why does the Prime Minister not answer my question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member wants the minister's resignation.


Some hon. Members:: Send it to a committee.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He does not want his resignation. Does the hon. member want his resignation or not?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Pitiful!


TOURISM
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and
Oral Questions
Tourism. Even if the flags are flying at half mast in Quebec on government buildings, Quebecers still want to keep developing their economic and social sectors within a federal framework, Madam Speaker. Last week, the Minister of Agriculture confirmed that Mr. Garon, the Quebec minister, would not let a delegation from the federal government attend the Salon de l'Agriculture, although the federal government had contributed $96,000 for the Salon.


Madam Speaker:: Order please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Marcel-Claude Roy: My question is as follows: Has the government of Quebec indicated an interest in the federal-provincial conference on the tourist industry which happens to be an important branch of the Quebec economy? Has the government of Quebec shown an interest in participating in this important event or will Quebecers once more be penalized by a government that is clearly separatist.


Madam Speaker:: Order please.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question, and I am sorry to have to inform him that the government of Quebec, through its spokesman for tourism, Mr. Biron, has publicly announced that it would not take part in the federal-provincial conference on tourism to be held next week. 1 very much regret this decision, Madam Speaker, since we have been working with all my colleagues in the provinces and territories for more than two years in order to develop a national tourism plan at the request of the industry itself, the provinces and the federal government, following consultations with the private sector in 1978 and 1979. The plan is about to be finalized, and I do hope that, perhaps not next week at the conference but sometime during the weeks and months to come, our colleagues in the Quebec government will agree to take part in this important exercise that will benefit both the Canadian economy and the Quebec economy.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member from Saskatoon. It is directed to the Minister of Finance. I think the minister is aware that, by his decision yesterday, Eldorado Nuclear in effect is wiping out a town of 3,000 people. I think there are 700 or 800 miners but everyone else depends on the mine, including all the small-business men.

December 4, 1981
Oral Questions
This involves loss of jobs, houses, and the livelihood of the small-business men.
Would the Minister of Finance now declare Uranium City a designated area for special assistance, which I believe could be done for a region of high unemployment. This was done for Cape Breton and for Windsor. Could he guarantee the people of Uranium City, Saskatchewan, that their area will be designated for special assistance because of this tragedy to the ordinary person living there?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, over the last few weeks Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. has been working with the various departments of the government trying to make use of all programs available under federal government authority so as to make sure the families concerned will have the utmost support from those programs. In addition, the president of Eldorado Nuclear Ltd. met with Premier Blakeney and has offered to transfer to the government of Saskatchewan all the assets owned by Eldorado in Uranium City at Beaverlodge so that the government of Saskatchewan can use those facilities in any way it wants. We are taking all the steps that are possible to ensure that the families concerned will be looked after.


REQUEST FOR EARLY DECISION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I have two questions. I understand there is still a fair amount of money in the program for designated areas. First, could the minister tell us by early next week whether he will designate this area as an area for special assistance? Second, could the minister give a commitment to the 3,000 people of Uranium City that there will not be any financial losses because of a decision made by a federal Crown corporation, a decision which was beyond the means or responsibility of any worker or resident of Uranium City?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot give the assurance that I will be able to give an answer by the middle of next week. As I have said, the decision to close the mine will become effective only in June, 1982. We have tried to give as long a lead time as possible for all the adjustments to take place. I am sure there will be considerable discussions with the government of Saskatchewan and within the federal government as to the best action to take in that regard.
Obviously, when a mine closes there are other people affected besides the miners themselves. I do not know whether there has ever been a case of guarantees that no financial damage would be suffered by anybody as a result of the closing of a mine, whether closed by a Crown corporation or by a private corporation. Indeed, the same thing applies when a new mine starts up-there is nothing to prevent people from making money. When a mine comes into operation and is developed, many people benefit. However, when the ore has been extracted, naturally a mine has to close.


THE BUDGET
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to one asked earlier of the minister responsible for housing. The minister stated in the House today, as he stated on national television last night, that he took a long shot, and by happenstance and good luck it paid off. That is what he is trying to ask this House to believe, and that is what he is trying to ask the country to believe.


An hon. Member:: You are fishing.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can assure the hon. member I am not fishing, because we have got him this time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: If the minister was only taking the long shot, how then can he explain the statement of the president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation which appears in today's press. Mr. Hession stated that the artists and others at graphic artists Studio S&B, "underwent strict security screening and briefing and were sworn to secrecy before they were permitted to work on the advertisements." If this, in fact, was not a budget document, which by the way subsequently appeared word for word in the budget, and if this was just a long shot, can the minister explain to the House why it was necessary to swear these people to secrecy?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I know that the hon. member in the previous government was the minister responsible for fisheries. I wish he would get away from that ministry and direct his attention toward the area of housing. In that vein, I wish that he would get down-


Mr. Siddon:: You should sit down.


Paul James Cosgrove: -to the merits of the problem facing the country and the problems of home owners that were brought to my attention daily by members opposite, including himself, namely, the problem of meeting mortgage renewals and high interest rates. I hope the hon. member will appreciate that in response to that, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials and myself on behalf of the government prepared programs to address that problem. That is why we were in a high state of readiness. That is why we had programs that were ready for public announcement the day after the budget was read in this House by the Minister of Finance.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister talks about a high state of readiness. What I am intrigued with is why there was such a high state of secrecy if this was not in fact a budget document.
December 4, 1981

Oral Questions
CONVENTION OF BUDGET SECRECY


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I direct my next question to the Minister of Finance. He will know from a statement made today by the president of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that certain employees of the graphic artists firm Studio S&B, St-Antoine Street, Montreal, were sworn to secrecy and underwent strict security because they had in their possession a document which turned out to be the policy of the minister responsible for housing, word for word as it appeared in the budget of Thursday night, November 12. These people had this information several days prior to the budget.
There are people who could benefit financially from having that information in advance, not to mention the fact that budget convention requires strict secrecy, armoured cars and lockups. Can the minister tell the House whether he has satisfied himself that there was not a major leak of the budget? I remind him that one of his predecessors, Mr. Gordon, the minister of finance in nineteen sixty-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The question has been asked and now the hon. member is continuing to make further comments. Therefore, I must interrupt him.


An hon. Member:: Let us have an answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not heard anything that would lead me to the conclusion that there was a budget leak of any kind.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Some of the answers which the Prime Minister gave yesterday in his press conference left considerable doubt as to his future plans. Being a betting man, he is thoroughly familiar with the process of creating bookmakers' odds on future events. Would the Prime Minister tell the House what he would consider at this time to be reasonable odds on the proposition that he will remain as leader of his party and lead the Liberal Party in the next general election?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am not in the betting business and I am unable to give odds to the hon. member, mainly for the reason that my answer yesterday indicated that it sometimes is difficult to resist a draft.
I do not know if there will be a great movement across the land or across the aisle for me to stay on for-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 see the leader of the New Democratic Party applauding my suggestion. In that case, if the draft is even coming from the opposite side, I will say that it is likely I will stay on after the next election, that is if the hon. member will continue to represent the good people of Northumberland.


ODDS ON NEXT GENERAL ELECTION
George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the Prime Minister would seriously take into consideration staying on as leader of the Liberal Party and leading his party in the next election. If he would do so, that would change the odds on the Conservative Party forming the next government from good to overwhelming.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member may well be right. Unfortunately I could not go on to say that it would increase his odds of being in the next Conservative cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday I caused to be delivered to him 60 letters from farmers within the York region, one of which was a letter from Mr. Harold Lapp of Markham. All of the letters dealt with the crisis in the farming industry and with the pressure that is put upon farmers to vacate their farms and give them up, in some cases as a consequence of bankruptcy.
The point which Mr. Lapp made will be of interest to the Prime Minister. It is that, in order to pursue the Prime Minister's goal of increased food aid and assistance to Third World countries, it is necessary that there be some technical assistance available from the agricultural industry. Mr. Lapp pointed out that if present trends continue there will be no farming industry to make that assistance available to the Third World.
In light of the circumstances, as they affect farmers, will the Prime Minister now make some of the increased foreign aid which he advocates, available to the farming industry in Canada in order that we maintain that industry here?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did receive the letters referred to by the hon. member which he received from his constituents, and I take them seriously. I received them by way of representation from the hon. member and from some of his constituents.

December 4, 1981
Oral Questions
I must say that I was disappointed to see that some of the letters were arguing the point of view put forward by the hon. member, that we should not help the starving peoples of the world as much as we are. I was a bit disappointed at that, and I must say that I am surprised that a member of the Conservative Party is taking that point of view.


John Albert Gamble: Of course, the very point is that unless there is an independent farming industry in Canada, the only aid that will be made available through that industry will be through state farms. As a member of the Conservative Party, of course I am not in favour of that.


HOUSING
John Albert Gamble: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance has said in the House five times that no Canadian will lose his home as a result of high interest rates. The only policy that I have heard advanced, both by the minister and by the minister responsible for housing, is a policy which would place in the hands of Canadians, at a maximum, $250 a month for 12 months by way of a grant. Quite frankly, that is not enough to save Canadian homes. Does the minister have a policy which he has not yet announced in the House to save Canadians who are at risk of losing their homes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, if and when there will be further decisions made with respect to the housing industry, they will be announced in the House in the usual way.

[ Translation]


HATE LITERATURE
Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. I hope that the minister had time to look at Le Devoir, the well-known newspaper, this morning. The last page was a full-page advertisement paid for by the Societe Saint-Jean-Baptiste of Montreal. Madam Speaker, I would qualify that advertisement as hate mongering, as demagoguery, and as another attempt to mislead Quebecers as to what we are doing here.
My question for the Minister of Justice is as follows: Concerning this obnoxious advertisement-my Conservative colleagues should take a good look at it-I wish to ask the minister whether he intends to take any legal action against the newspaper that published this slander throughout the
province today, and misrepresents our work as the people's representatives in the House of Commons.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I don't know whether there is a case for legal action or not. What I do know, and have observed in the course of my public life, is that mud throwing is the weapon of the weak.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure the minister is aware that last weekend there was a conference of organizations concerned with refugees which considered the task force report which came out at the minister's request, and which commented on the weaknesses of the Refugee Status Advisory Committee and its proceedings.
Considering that the Immigration Act requires the Refugee Status Advisory Committee to read the transcript of evidence of each person claiming refugee status and to make a direct judgment on each claim, and considering that the minister's task force has recently reported that, in violation of the Immigration Act, half of the transcripts were never read by the committee, and considering that almost three quarters of all claimants have been rejected-no doubt including all those who were denied their legal right to have their transcripts read by the committee-will the minister agree to the request made by the standing conference of organizations concerned with refugees to declare a moratorium on all removal orders and all departure notices affecting refugee claimants whose claims have been refused within the existing process?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we did establish a task force with the very specific purpose of examining the whole refugee determination procedure, to ensure that it lived up to the spirit of the act which was passed by Parliament and came into force in 1978.
I am already acting upon a number of those recommendations and I will be establishing new guidelines for the Refugee Status Advisory Committee as well as appointing new members to that committee. We could not, however, entirely close down the entire system because, as the hon. member knows, we are faced with an enormous backlog of people who came in during the past year to claim refugee status on somewhat spurious grounds. In fairness to them and to the public, we want to continue processing those claims. But we are prepared to entertain any further recommendations for change, and for that reason I have called a conference which will be chaired by the hon. member for Louis-Hebert. It will be held in the new year, at which time we will be glad to undertake an examination of the representations made by the conference.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question for the same minister. The Steel Company of Canada has announced that it will not be recalling about 20 per cent of its work force as a result of a downturn in the steel industry. Would the Minister of Employment and Immigration set up a special UIC task force to go into Hamilton and meet with the company, the union and the affected employees, to speed up their claims for unemployment insurance so that they will not be caught up in the process as the workers at Heckett and at Crosstown Mobile Car Wash were?


Lloyd Axworthy: The situations sound quite different. In the case of Heckett Engineering and the Mobile car wash, they were under Section 44 of the act which deals with groups of workers who are not directly involved in a strike position but are subject to the liabilities under the act. As the hon. member knows, we have already cleared up those two cases.
In the case of workers who are directly involved, we would be quite prepared to look at any particular problem which might be occasioned by the large numbers which would be involved. I would be prepared to examine that, but I want to make clear to the hon. member that these are two different situations and require two different responses.


HOUSING
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing. He is aware that in the Ottawa-Carleton region the major rental owner is Minto Management Limited which is intending to raise its rents substantially to some 7,000 to 9,000 tenants. We have one of the lowest vacancy rates in Canada, and there is very little choice in housing in a situation that is virtually a monopoly.
Would the minister please tell the House where in the budget there can be some specific help granted to Ottawa-Carleton so that there can be a choice made in housing? I have looked at the budget. I think the provisions in terms of alternate housing are next to useless. Will the minister make a recommendation to the Minister of Finance that he increase measures for the availability of housing stock so that people will have a choice and not be subject to a monopoly?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in the budget announcement dealing with stimulus to rental construction one of the conditions of that housing and
Petitions
its identification for stimulus is that it be located in markets which indeed do have tight vacancy rates. I must bring to the attention of the hon. member that the city of Ottawa does not have a tight vacancy rate when compared with other metropolitan areas such as Vancouver, Victoria, Saint John, and metropolitan Toronto. These, by comparison and by normal standards, are not high.
I also bring to the hon. member's attention that the city of Ottawa has requested an increase in allocation under Section 56(1), which relates to non-profit and co-op housing. We have already responded to Ottawa's request for an increase in rehabilitation funds, which permit people to stay in their homes longer. I know those two programs are well received by the city. We are taking into account its request for further allocation.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, December 3, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) stated in this House this morning that no Canadian will lose his home because of high interest rates. As Your Honour is aware, many petitions have been presented to the House on behalf of people who are going to lose their homes, and I would like to know, if possible, from the Clerk of the House how many petitions have been submitted to the House in this respect, how many individuals have stated in their petitions that they will lose their homes and how many regions are represented by those petitions.
The Minister of Finance has misled the House because he has sat here and listened to those petitions being read-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Frederick William Wright: Inadvertently.
In addition to that, many real estate firms have sent letters to every member of this House stating that people are losing their homes. The real estate board and HUDAC have written numerous letters.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Before the hon. member gets into debate, I think I can satisfy him by saying that the petitions as they were presented to the House are at the disposal of hon. members, who may examine them and compile statistics. Perhaps we can assist hon. members in compiling those statistics, but the point of order raised by the hon. member I can answer immediately.

December 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Frederick William Wright: Will Your Honour make those available? Madam Speaker: They are available as a matter of course.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Marcel-Claude Roy: Madam Speaker, I wish to table the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that notwithstanding consultation with the representatives of the parties, it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Order 75a or 75b for the third reading stage of Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act. I therefore wish to give notice that at a later date, I shall move pursuant to Standing Order 75c that one sitting day be allocated to the third reading stage of this bill.


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but 1 did not get the translation, and the minister's French is a little too rapid even for me. When did he say he would be moving that motion?


Marc Lalonde: At a later date.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,782, 2,804, 2,961, 3,162, 3,164 and 3,465.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of J. Maxim, 618-9th Ave. N.E., Calgary, Alberta in the constituency of Calgary East among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that this individual is the president of the Calgary East Liberal Association?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that J. Maxim was the president of the Calgary East Liberal Association until February 11, 1981, is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,555 answered December 1, 1981.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): To the knowledge of the government, during the past five years, did Canadian public officials or private individuals appear as guest speakers before the Soviet Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada and, if so, in each case (a) what was his/her name (b) was the speaking engagement solicited or did it occur as a result of an invitation from the Soviet authorities (c) were other Canadians, official or otherwise, present during the presentation and, if so, what were their names?


Mark R. MacGuigan: To our knowledge during the past five years the only Canadian public official to appear as a guest speaker before the Soviet Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada was Mr. Ivan Head in 1977. Mr. Head at that time was the Prime Minister's foreign policy advisor. He was invited to speak before the Soviet Institute and to our knowledge no other Canadian public officials were present during this speaking engagement. In June, 1981, at the request of the Alberta government, Mr. Horst Schmidt, the Alberta minister of economic development, visited the Soviet Institute in question for discussions with its senior representatives. Three Canadian Embassy officers were present during this visit: Ambassador Geoffrey Pearson, Minister Counsellor Peter Hancock and Second Secretary Robert Poetschke.
Against this background, while agencies of the federal government, such as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), do have official exchange programs with the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences, a branch of which is the Soviet Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada, we do not have any specific exchange programs of an institution-to-institution nature with the Soviet Institute in question. As such there has not been a federally-sponsored program involving Canadian officials or private individuals either on exchange with or speaking at the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada. We understand that there have been occasions over the past five years where on an ad hoc basis, private individuals or Canadian official exchangees doing research in Moscow, have been invited by the Soviet side to speak before the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada. While it appears that in most cases these invitations have been initiated by the
December 4, 1981

Soviet side, there have been instances when Canadians visiting Moscow for business or touristic purposes have visited the Soviet Institute. Against this background it has generally not been the practice of the Institute of the U.S.A. and Canada to invite Canadian officials, including embassy representatives, to participate or sit in on these private visits or speaking engagements. In view of the personal and unofficial nature of these speaking engagements, the government considers that it would not be appropriate to identify the names of those individuals who have visited the institute.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the Public Service Commission of Canada in footnote No. 19 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the office machinery lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the commission undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Most of the thefts reported during 1979/80 took place in Public Service Commission training centres and involved theft of training aids rather than office machinery as such. The items were normally reported stolen overnight or during a weekend.
(a)	Various unknown persons.
(b)	No.
(c)	No.
(d)	The stolen equipment was replaced from existing inventory.
(e)	Yes. Contracted security services were awarded to different firms; tightened internal security procedures were developed and published; and an employee security awareness program was promoted within the commission.


Mr. McKinnon: Did the Department of National Defence place a $50,000 contract under contract number 03GR3200248 (2GR81-00226) with Adga Systems International for engineering consulting services and, if so, what specific services is the company providing?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, awarded a contract to Adga Systems International. The purpose of the contract was to provide the Department of National Defence with scientific and engineering services to support design, development, procurement, test evaluation and modification of experimental electronic warfare (EW) communications, radar and infra red/electro optical (IR/EO) equipment.
Order Paper Questions
DND-CONTRACT WITH A. LAVENDEL & ASSOCIATES


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence place three contracts with A. Lavendel & Associates for assorted aircraft parts and airframe spares, as indicated in volume 8, No. 31 of the weekly bulletin of "Business Opportunities"?
2.	Is the company an aircraft parts manufacturer and, if so, for what reason did it receive the contract?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The Department of Supply and Services did place the three referenced contracts on behalf of the Department of National Defence with A. Lavendel & Associates.
2(a) No. Lavendel is not an aircraft parts manufacturer but a Canadian agent. Governmental policy provides for the inclusion of manufacturers, agents and distributors on the Department of Supply and Services source lists. When responding to a bid, an agent plays the role of a prime contractor and, if successful, secures the needed items through appropriate means and delivers said items according to the terms of the contract. In supporting aging, out of production aircraft such as the CF-104, it happens frequently that bids are received only from such organizations and necessity dictates that needed spares be obtained from them.
2(b) A. Lavendel was awarded the referenced contracts on the basis of being the lowest bidder for most items awarded to the company and on the basis of best delivery for certain items urgently required in connection with the CF-104 depot level inspection and repair/service life extension program (DLIR/ SLEP).


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 2,581 stating in part with regard to payment of public funds to Mr. Jean Noel Tremblay, "See Energy, Mines and Resources' reply to question No. 5 tabled February 24, 1981.", is the government aware that Mr. Jean Noel Tremblay is not mentioned in the reply referred to and is the government prepared to issue a corrected answer to question No. 2,581?


Yvon Pinard: The
hon. member is referred to the reply to question No. 5, tabled in the House of Commons February 24, 1981 as an order for return, Sessional Paper 321-2/5.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


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


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax-East):: Madam Speaker, I am aware of the custom over the years with respect to responding to questions placed on the Order Paper and the courtesy that is extended with respect to starred questions. I

December 4, 1981
Order Paper Questions
ask the indulgence of the parliamentary secretary because of the urgency of questions dealing with the loss of some 60 destroyers, and now two more, leaving us with just one.
My question is question No. 3,494. It is a long question and I will not repeat it, but in essence it asks for a report on the status of our destroyers and destroyer escorts. What is the nature of the damage? What will it cost to repair them? When will they be operational? What contingency plans are we putting in place in the interim? Have we advised our NATO allies and, if so, what was the nature of that advice? To what degree does the present status of our fleet which, with the exception of one ship, is inoperable in terms of destroyers, affect our stated roles and commitments both here at home and abroad?
I think the parliamentary secretary will realize the significance of the Canadian navy's having no ships. For the edification of the House and the people in this country who are concerned, he might want to look at whether he will be able to respond to these questions early in the new week.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will convey that representation to the minister. I point out, however, that the question is a complicated one. It is dated November 27. However, I will see what can be done to expedite the answer.


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same kind of point of order. I have risen on previous occasions about question No. 2,035, which is dated January 27 of this year, and question No. 2,519, which is dated May 21. The first question had to do with the cost of the trip by service aircraft by the Prime Minister to Austria last year. The second one had to do with the number of people using Falcon aircraft in one quarter of this year. All these expenses are borne entirely by the taxpayer, and I believe the taxpayer of the country has the right to know what he is spending his money on.
It is rather ironic at a time when we have a freedom of information bill in this House that the government is not disclosing information which hitherto it did. It is not unusual to ask what the cost of travel has been for ministers and prime ministers, and up until now it has always been forthcoming.
On November 26 I asked the same question, and I pointed out that on each occasion when I had asked it before the parliamentary secretary had said, "I will take notice of the representation and make inquiries." 1 asked him what kinds of answers he gets to those inquiries, and he said, "I will take further note; I am still awaiting the response from my earlier inquiry." I am beginning to wonder if any of the ministers know who the parliamentary secretary is or what he is supposed to be doing and accomplishing in this House, because he is certainly failing abysmally in getting answers to important questions of long standing.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will again take note of the hon. member's representations. I have indicated that I would make inquiries. I have made inquiries, and I have been advised that the answers will be forthcoming before too long.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South) moved:: That this House condemns the failure of the government to foresee or avert the crisis facing the Atlantic fishing industry, regrets that Canadian-owned fish processing plants facing closure have not attracted the same active support from the government as have foreign multinationals in other parts of Canada experiencing similar difficulties, and urges the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to listen sympathetically and respond positively to the four Atlantic Ministers of Fisheries when he meets with them on Monday, December 7, 1981.
He said: Madam Speaker, the issue that is in front of the House today is extraordinarily important. The tragedy is that the situation that is facing the east coast fishery was clearly foreseeable. For many months the government has been in a position to know that some kind of plan of action had to be put in place. If one looks at the newspaper headlines from as early as August of this year, one will see that they are indeed enlightening. I quote from The Globe and Mail of August 13: "Fish production cuts widespread, east coast situation may get worse." August 12, The Globe and Mail: "National Sea Products to shut three major plants." Again in August: "National Sea shutdowns leave 1,800 out of work."
My colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), wrote to the government in August. The hon. member is a former minister of fisheries. An article in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald was headlined: "McGrath warns Atlantic fishery about to collapse." An item in the Financial Post was headlined: "Rough waters for fish exporters." More recently, on October 21, we see in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald: "Fishery hit hard by poor U.S. market." The October 21 edition of the St. John's Evening Telegram says: "Rompkey says Ottawa is prepared to help." That, of course, refers to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). In October 17 The Globe and Mail we see an article headlined: "Hard times down east."
I am glad to see that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has been able to return to the chamber because I know the minister is concerned. He has told us so. The minister knows there are problems in the east coast fishery because he has told us there are problems. As I said to the minister in committee earlier this week, a very great parliamentarian named Winston Churchill once said of problems: "Don't speak to me of problems, the problems will speak for
December 4, 1981

themselves; come up with a plan of action." This government has not come up with a plan of action. That is why it is to be condemned for a situation on the east coast which is getting worse and for which there is no response whatsoever from the Government of Canada.
The minister was in committee, as I said, where he told us what the problems are. He told us about the problems of marketing, commodity quality, problems over capitalization and the problems of too many licences and more fish plants being built than he thought was appropriate. However, during all this time, except for a short interruption, it has been the Liberal Party in power and this minister who has been the minister of fisheries.
There is no answer. We know there are plants facing imminent collapse in the Atlantic fishery. It is no secret that one company in Newfoundland is in critical condition. It is no secret either that that company has put before both the provincial government and the Federal government a plan of action which will require some support and help from both levels of government. I know the minister knows all about this. However, there are other plants the minister may be hearing about unless something is done.
It is incredible that after all these months the minister will only on this coming Monday get together with his provincial counterparts. When we asked him what he is going to say to his counterparts, what sort of plan of action he might put forward on behalf of the federal government, this is what he said:
But I intend to say to my provincial counterparts on Monday, and in fact to give them all the information we have, because I think there is a certain amount of misinformation floating around.
The minister smiles. There is always a certain amount of misinformation floating around, especially when ministers are making speeches.


Mr. LeBlanc:: Especially when the opposition is asking questions.


John Allen Fraser: When the opposition is asking questions, the misinformation is what comes back by way of answers. The minister is saying here that when he meets with the provincial ministers on Monday, he will give them all the facts. Isn't that interesting.
What facts does the minister think he can give them that they do not already have? Is he going to tell them there is a plant in imminent danger of collapsing because it does not have the financing it needs? Is he going to tell them that there are other plants that will be closing unless they receive help soon? Will he tell them that in Newfoundland there is 30 to 40 per cent unemployment in these areas? Is the minister going to tell them again that we should not catch so many fish or we should fix up the fish better before selling them?
Is the minister going to tell them what he told the world in his speech of October 3? Talk about misinformation. Everybody asks what was meant in that speech. The minister said we have to export less fish, or at least we need to have less people
Fisheries
exporting fish. The minister smiles. He says, "Yes, now the hon. member of the opposition has it straight." He says we have finally found out. He made the speech on October 3, but is only now getting it sorted out and only because we are asking questions. When the minister talks about misinformation, he adds to it.
What is the minister going to tell his provincial counterparts? Is he going to tell them that he intends to bring in legislation to cut down the number of exporters? What is his real position? Should we be exporting fewer fish or selling fewer fish? Should we not be selling more fish in more markets?
I can go along with the minister when he says there has to be better quality control. I understand, as does everyone else, including the ministers who will be meeting with him on Monday, that the American market is not what it was a few years ago.
What these ministers will want to hear is not what they already know. They are not coming to Ottawa to be told that there is a lot of misinformation floating around, as the minister told us in committee a few days ago. They will be coming to Ottawa to hear from the minister what is the federal approach. We have not heard that. We hope we will hear it today.
It is the responsibility of this government and this minister to tell us what is being done and to put a plan before the provincial ministers. No one is suggesting that this minister or the federal government must necessarily come up with all the answers or be fully responsible to do everything that is needed. But the federal government is the lead government in this matter. The federal government must present a plan. We want to hear from the minister today. We do not want any misinformation. The minister smiles. I do not know whether that is a smile of shame or anticipation. In either case, we will be grateful for some information today.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, it is not really a laughing matter; I know the minister knows that. The situation on the east coast is extraordinarily serious. We are not talking just about corporations; we are talking about people; we are talking about families; we are talking about men and women whose very livelihood and future are threatened. When one considers that the annual incomes of fishermen in Newfoundland, as a consequence of the very difficult time they are now facing, are down to around $4,000 a year, and that is including unemployment insurance, then we are facing not only an economic tragedy but a social tragedy.
We would like the minister to speak to us today and to tell us what he is going to do, Mr. Speaker. We do not need to be told what the problems are, we can see them. I would hope that the minister is not going to say that by asking questions we are spreading misinformation.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely the custom demands that we are entitled to hear a reply from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), to

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
whom the motion is addressed and to whom the remarks of my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), were addressed. He is the one who is responsible and he is the one who has to give an account to this House. If we are to have an orderly debate today, surely we are entitled-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is rising to be recognized, he can certainly be recognized. The Chair is looking at this stage to hon. members who are seeking the floor.


John Allen Fraser: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is simply this: through you, Mr. Speaker, we would appreciate hearing from the minister as to whether or not he is even going to speak to us. This is quite extraordinary!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is out of order at this stage.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. members put on a show of waxing indignation, which they are both pretty good at doing, as a matter of courtesy-I looked around because I expected that there would be a speaker from the New Democratic Party. Obviously I think it is fair in normal, human, intelligent discussion, that I listen to the points of view and then 1 try to respond as best as I can. In fact, my preference, would be to speak towards the end of the debate; but I am told that hon. members want me to speak earlier. As a matter of courtesy to the House, I am allowing other hon. members to bring forward the points they wish to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I was also a little bit hesitant to stand up because I expected that the minister would address himself to the questions posed by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that we would all gain a great deal of knowledge from the kind of replies that he might give and that that would give those of us who may not be as intimately associated with the fishing industry on the Atlantic coast the opportunity to examine some of his current thinking and perhaps make an appropriate response. We could make a more positive, intelligent and detailed response once we have heard from the minister. However, we have other members in our caucus who will be able to listen to the wisdom of the minister when his time comes. We will be very pleased to put up not just one speaker today but others. If we have time for one more, we will be very grateful to participate.
I think when we listen to the concerns of the Atlantic fishery-and I have relatives in Prince Edward Island in the Atlantic fishery who tell me that while the lobster or the inshore fishery-


An hon. Member:: There are a lot of Roses in Newfoundland as well.


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, but they are not my relatives, as far as I know. But if they are Roses, they are bound to be very nice, enlightened, intelligent and honourable people! If the hon.
member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) knows them, I am sure he can confirm that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair would call the attention of the hon. member that the Chair is not familiar with the parties to whom he is referring.


Mark Willson Rose: I do not know whether that was an attempt at humour on the part of the Chair or what, but it did disturb somewhat the excellent line of reasoning and logic that I was attempting to develop at the time. Mr. Speaker, whether we are talking about the east coast, with which I am less familiar, or the west coast, with which I am more familiar, the state of the fishing industry in Canada is deplorable. Whether we are talking about marketing, about too many vessels too highly capitalized chasing too few fish, or whether we are concerned about an extremely important problem facing the fishing industry on the west coast-and I am sure it is the same on the east coast-the problem is one of energy prices. The energy component in cost of doing business, of farming or even catching fish has been a serious disadvantage, a serious inhibitor and a serious income depleter of west coast fishermen, and I am sure energy costs also injure the east coast fishermen. The west coast fisheries has been in a crisis for a number of years. We now learn from recent events that there is an imminent crisis for the east coast fisheries.
I was about to say before the Chair rose on its own point of order that while we have learned that the lobster or inshore fishermen have done fairly well in Prince Edward Island this year, other fisheries have been far less successful. We have also learned from news reports and from questions posed in the House that there are a great number of processing plants that are being threatened in the Atlantic region. No one can treat these matters lightly, especially when we have an economy facing a recession. There are 128,000 fewer jobs available in Canada in all industries, including processing, manufacturing and the resources industries, than there were just three months ago. We are told marketing is down and we have too many people in the business. On the west coast, the Pearse commission has recommended a royalty in which the fishermen will be asked to finance themselves into oblivion through a buy-back program. We have a similar situation now happening in the east coast fisheries. It is odd that in the days when perhaps one third of the world goes to bed hungry every night, when we are beseiged by groups such as OXFAM and Save the Children, church agencies and other relief agencies, apparently we have a glut of fish on the east coast.
We have a Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who goes to Nairobi and makes a speech at the alternative energy conference saying how much Canada needed and wanted to become involved in assisting the Third World. I am suggesting to hon. members that fish aid is one way to assist the elimination of a good deal of the world's hunger, disease, oppression, and perhaps even the rising militarism of the Third World. We need an expansionary budget policy not only in the fishing industry but to stimulate our whole economy, so that we might then be in a better position to assist the Third World.
December 4, 1981

Canadians are suffering through high interest rates and the lack of a visionary and expansionary budget. Not only the fishing industry but all segments of our economy suffer, from housing to manufacturing. Someone once said that if your neighbour loses his job, then you are in a recession; but if you lose your own, you are in a depression. In the last month 40,000 job opportunities have disappeared in this country.
I would just like to suggest that there is no point in looking for the villain of the piece much beyond the federal government. The federal government is the one that is and has been traditionally, historically and constitutionally responsible for fishing. Fisheries have almost entirely been under the jurisdiction of the federal government. If salmon stocks are down and enhancement programs are failing, the department has to close or threaten to close the Fraser river to 450 gill netters in my riding. This is because stocks are down, escapements are too low, or there is overfishing in one segment, overcapitalization and increased efficiency of gear used by modern fishermen. If there exist so many fish boats that they have to start buying them back with fishermen's money, on whom do we lay the blame? Don't blame me, I'm NDP!
I look forward, not just with interest but with fascination, to what kind of remedies the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is prepared to propose to solve the very serious problem affecting not only the area from which I come but the area he represents. I know he will be hobbled in his efforts by lack of funds. He will be like the minister of housing; he will express all kinds of sympathy and he will ask everyone to accept it, but what they need is his help.
Whether or not the minister of housing knew about the budget in advance seems to be open to some question or dispute. At least on the night of the budget he said that he was very pleased he would not have to resign because he got through a program which, at its biggest, might provide 15,000 homes. He cut off all hope of increased rental accommodations. We in the Vancouver area could have used the 15,000 homes in Vancouver. He cut off all hope in my riding that there would be more rental units built soon.


Walter David Baker: In my area as well.


Mark Willson Rose: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) indicates that he could use those homes in his area. At the same time, over the last ten years the government has pumped $125 million into Consolidated Computers, which has turned out to be a real dog. By the time we discover the ins and outs of that joint venture, we will be a good deal older than we are now; I understand Treasury Board is looking into it.
Seriously, if the fisheries minister does not have the power, the finances or suggestions for improvements, not only in the management of fisheries but in an effort to expand and assist processing at this time of crisis, perhaps it will be necessary to bring forward a subsidy program in order to stimulate world trade. This could be done, even if he had to do what was done
Fisheries
for Third World countries through powdered milk shipments; there has been a subsidy program for dried milk for years. The government must do something. The need is urgent. It is of crisis proportion.
I did not rise immediately after the speech of the hon. member for Vancouver South because I wanted to hear what the minister would offer. I hoped it would be something more than sympathy or kind words. I anticipated that he would rise to tell us that he had convinced the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who is also from the Atlantic provinces, that he will have to change some of the budget provisions and spring a little more money to assist because words will no longer solve complex problems. The government must do more than fine tune; it should reverse the direction of the mad lunacy of its economic policy which has brought the country virtually to its knees. I am referring not only to the fishing industry, but to the housing, agricultural, resource and marketing industries as well. In fact, today we heard talk about Uranium City.
In closing, may I repeat that we look forward with a great deal of anticipation, hope and even prayer that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans from the province of New Brunswick will, in his usual civilized and very eloquent way, lead us out of this fish wilderness into a new day of hope not only for Atlantic fishermen but for west coast fishermen as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to make a few brief remarks before the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) replies. I am not an expert in fisheries. As a matter of fact, I live on the west coast in the only riding on the lower mainland which is landlocked; it does not border on the ocean or on a major river. Trout Lake is in my riding. It is about the size of the House of Commons!
This does not mean that I cannot have some interest in fisheries. Like other Canadians who are indirectly affected by the plight of fishermen on the east and west coasts, I am concerned about the situation. Their struggles are our struggles; their difficulties are our difficulties. If any group is in need of help or assistance from the government and in need of some sympathy from the larger forces of public opinion outside the government, surely it is the fishermen of the country.
Recently as a member of the energy committee I met with some west coast fishermen of the UFAW in Vancouver. I personally heard their particular concerns. While they are fishing on the west coast, I think their concerns have relevancy to east coast fishermen with which this motion deals.
The motion refers to "the failure of the government to foresee or avert the crisis facing the Atlantic fishing industry." As the energy critic of the NDP, I wanted to raise this point before the minister replied. I am referring to the difficulties faced by fishermen because of energy costs. This was one of their concerns when I spoke with them in Vancouver. There was almost a desperate feeling at the meeting. I heard personally from trollers their concerns about great increases in energy prices and how they were being squeezed. They told me

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
that they could not really increase the price of fish, but they were being squeezed by costs, especially energy costs which were continually rising; eventually it will not be worth fishing. They told me about the difficulties. They mentioned the Pearse report and the difficulties concerning it.
I do not want to focus on that particular matter now, but I should like to focus on energy costs. The minister must know that as a result of the energy agreements between Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia and the Government of Canada, the price of energy will increase greatly over the next four years. As a matter of fact, the cost of diesel fuel will double.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I understood that he was rising to make a few brief comments in the form of a question before the minister replied. Consequently, I yielded the floor on that basis. I was wondering whether he intends to continue.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member stopping me in full flight. I intend to make my remarks short. I just wanted to lay the groundwork. Costs are doubling. Fishermen have told me that they are already suffering. We must remember that diesel fuel costs will rise greatly next year. They told me that there was some sort of a subsidy in gasoline at the present time. But my question is simple. Is the minister prepared to approach the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and ask him to revise his budget, and to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to redistribute some of the $20 billion the government will receive from those energy agreements over the next five years? Will they redistribute some of that money to the people in society who really need it, those who will be hit by higher costs?
I am not referring to drivers of automobiles; perhaps they can look after themselves. It will be tough but they will have to do it. Some of the groups would be fishermen, farmers, and seniors who have to pay extra oil costs. Can we not do something to reduce energy costs to fishermen, perhaps by changing the federal tax paid on the diesel fuel oil that they use.
I hope the minister will not say that that cannot be done. Under Bill C-48 which we have been debating, Dome Petroleum and other companies like it will be given a 93 cents subsidy on every dollar spent on drilling. That is a massive subsidy. I am very familiar with the petroleum incentives program and under that program we will provide something like $2,000 million in subsidies over the next five years. That is nearly $3 billion, Mr. Speaker. Can we not do a little bit for the fishermen and help them with the cost of their fuel?
This motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who has always shown great concern for the fishing industry and for the ordinary people of this country. His riding is neighbour to mine. I hope that in the course of his reply to that hon. member the minister will
announce some concrete proposals to help in this situation. Perhaps he could specifically address his remarks to the question of energy costs for fishermen. That is a problem about which I think something should be done.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in some ways I wish that the debate were a little less formalized and that we could proceed with questions and answers. In many ways, there are a lot of questions to be asked on these issues. The motion stands in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). I must confess that when I read it I was suprised to see that it begins as follows:
That this House condemns the failure of the government to foresee or avert the crisis facing the Atlantic fishing industry...
If there is one area in which I gave ample warning for years, it is in the area of the danger of returning to the boom or bust cycle, having experienced the bust cycle of 1973-74. In fact, I might tell the House that one of the people with whom I co-operated very positively at that time is the former minister of finance, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
When I inherited the fishery in 1974 there were two main problems. One was the low catch rate because of overfishing by foreign fleets, particularly off the northeast coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. The other problem was the low throughput in the processing plants. We addressed those two problems and if anyone bothers to read the policy document published in 1975, they will see that the first priority was the establishment of Canadian jurisdiction over the offshore zone, which meant that we would control the amount of fishing, the restoration of stocks and the stock expansion that followed. So I find that there is not very much substance to the charge of the opposition that we did not foresee the possibility of a crisis developing.
The record will show, and I will quote it, that I have publicly warned about the danger of overexpansion in the past few years and about the need for processing companies to get their act together in the highly competitive marketing field. Unfortunately many of my words fell on deaf ears.
On May 19, 1977, speaking in St. John's, Newfoundland, I pointed out that the new 200-mile zone, which many were hailing as opening the door to a huge fishing bonanza, was "less a pot of gold than a garden needing work and care." My actual words at the time were:
We are going to need great self-discipline to avoid repeating errors of the past: overcapacity, overlicensing, overfishing.
Later that year, speaking in Yarmouth, I expressed grave concerns about expanding the fleet, a move that was being pushed very hard, particularly by the provincial politicians and mainly in Newfoundland. I said on that occasion that "for advice on fleet expansion and the like, we look first to the state of the stocks and to the fishermen." I also said: "Even when we replace fishing units, we must make sure it is not disguised expansion." These were not isolated statements; I repeated them consistently, both in this House and elsewhere.
December 4, 1981

The federal government, with the responsibility for managing this country's ocean fisheries-and this was pointed out by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose)-went to the limit of its mandate to attempt to keep the industry on an even keel. We said repeatedly that more discipline was needed in export marketing to compete with the single desk marketing operations of our Scandinavian competitors. But the processors told us bluntly: "Keep out of marketing, that's our business." So we kept out, and today that is where the most serious problems exist. Perhaps we should have insisted on getting involved in marketing at the government level. If we had, I am sure the screams would have been long and loud from our friends sitting on your immediate left, Mr. Speaker.
The record will also show that we have resisted the pressure for a massive expansion of the fishing fleet. We have deliberately held in check the growth of the offshore fleet. The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) should listen to that- we resisted the massive expansion of the offshore fleet. That was done with great difficulty in the face of the $900 million fleet expansion proposals announced with much fanfare by the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia at the time. I am not partisan, but one of those governments shared my political faith.
As another measure to attempt to keep the fleet's catching capacity in line with the available resource, we introduced the foot-for-foot replacement policy. Again, this policy was unpopular in many quarters, but if we had not stuck by our guns the present situation would undoubtedly have become much worse.
Fleet overcapacity is certainly a factor in the current situation on the Atlantic coast, just as it is on the west coast. A recent study of vessels fishing within 200 miles of Nova Scotia showed that if the fleet capacity were brought in line with the available resource, an annual saving of around $25 million could result. In other words, we have a sector of the fleet that is inefficient to the tune of $25 million.
The other major factor in the current situation facing the Atlantic fisheries is, of course, the overexpansion of the processing plants. I have some interesting figures regarding the growth of processing plants in Newfoundland. The minister of fisheries for Nova Scotia became quite indignant after reading only what the agencies carried, and with some reason, I think, because that province has kept the lid on its processing capacity rather successfully. I wish Newfoundland and Quebec had done the same. In 1973 there were 61 registered plants in Newfoundland. At the latest count that total has mushroomed to 225, a 269 per cent increase in 1973 and a 53 per cent increase since 1977. The federal government cannot be blamed for this state of affairs as plant licensing is strictly a provincial jurisdiction. I am not trying to pass the buck when I say this; I am trying to establish some facts. In fact, during the period 1977-79 my department received 48 requests from the province of Newfoundland for us to comment on new licensing applications. We advised against the licensing of 34 of the 48 on the grounds that the resource could not maintain that number. In spite of our advice, 22 of the 34 were built anyway.
Fisheries
Although there is no question that this mad rush to build processing plants in the mid and late seventies has substantially contributed to what is currently ailing the Atlantic fisheries, I can understand and, to a certain extent, sympathize with those in the provinces who are responsible for the decisions. The apparently rosy prospects for the fishing industry following the introduction of the 200-mile limit were obviously a great temptation to open the floodgates in provinces which were grappling with high unemployment and lagging economies. I am sorry that they did what they did, but at the same time, as I said, I can understand it. However, at the moment my sympathy cannot help the situation.
It is important to look back and assess the situation in which the Atlantic fishing industry found itself in 1977 when the 200-mile zone was brought in. In many ways, the industry was riding the crest of the wave. The resource picture was reasonably good. Fuel was comparatively cheap. There was no need to steam hundreds of miles to get to the resource, and our number one market was just across the border. Canada enjoyed huge advantages which most countries, and our competitors, did not enjoy, such as close proximity to the resource, close proximity to the market, and a good fishing tradition. Additionally, the infrastructure was all there, ready to be put to work. We already had overcapacity, and if ever an industry had a chance of a lifetime, surely that was it.
However, what happened in the space of four short years? I previously mentioned that one of the moves which courted disaster was overinvestment. However, that is not the only shortcoming that I lay at the door of the industry. Despite our pleadings, processors did not move in the direction of orderly marketing but continued to engage in destructive price undercutting among themselves. In fact, a good part of this year's problem was triggered as a result of dumping by competing processors in the U.S. market.
Again, in the face of repeated warnings and cajoling by my department, industry did not make a determined attempt to consistently market top quality products. The day has gone when our export customers or our domestic customers, for that matter, will accept anything that is put on the counters. Big fast-food chains, such as McDonald's, want fish of first quality, day in and day out, not just five days out of six. If they cannot get it from us, they will go elsewhere, and I am afraid that they do.
One can also lay a measure of blame on the industry for a lack of initiative and imagination concerning the introduction of new product lines. I imagine that is one of the reasons consumption of fish in Canada has dropped off somewhat lately. Again, this does not apply to all companies. As is evident, I believe, in the riding of the hon. member for South Shore, some have made very creditable efforts. Consumers are always looking for something different in their food diet, but I am afraid they are not getting too much from most of our major companies. However, we can only advise on this matter, we cannot direct.

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
I might add that officials from my department and officials from other governments have been thoroughly looking at the marketplace and its potential in recent years. However, when we have offered advice, I am afraid that in many cases it has been thrown back in our faces.
The motion before the House seeks to condemn the government for not providing active support for processing plants facing closure. By that, one supposes that the government is being criticized for not throwing a large sum of taxpayers' money into bolstering companies which are in difficulty. If that were the quick and easy way to solve the troubles of the fishing industry, then I imagine that I would be very enthusiastic about it. However, simply pumping money will not do the trick. We have surely learned that since 1974. That is not the panacea many people are seeking. It might be, perhaps, a band-aid solution, but it will not be a permanent cure. What is needed to cure the ills of the fishing industry is a basic restructuring, a reordering of the way we operate, in order to reduce input costs in relation to market prices, thereby increasing profitability.
When we look at the current fish export statistics, the picture does not look all that grim. For the first nine months of 1981, Canada's total fish exports were worth more than $1,100 million compared to $898 million for the same period last year, which means an increase of 22 per cent. At that rate, it looks as though we will once again hold the top spot in world fish exporting. We will be the main fish exporting nation for 1981.
Here are some figures for the same nine-month period. Exports of fresh and frozen seafish, whole or dressed, are up 32 per cent in quantity and 24 per cent in value, while exports of fresh and frozen seafish, fillets and blocks, total 130,000 tonnes valued at $330 million, compared to 118,000 tonnes and $282 million last year. Exports of smoked, salted and cured fish increased by 21 per cent in quantity and 35 per cent in value. Canned fish exports are 12 per cent higher over this period last year.
If these export totals are coming up consistently higher than last year-and let it not be forgotten that exports are the life blood of the Canadian fishing industry

then one might be excused for asking why so many of our fish producers are in trouble. If the catch is up and the prices are up, then the problem obviously lies in weaknesses and inefficiencies in the processing and marketing structure. Certainly, high interest rates and a soft U.S. market are contributing factors to the current situation over which we have little or no control. However, a large proportion of the problem is one which is within our power to control. I might say that the problems began to emerge before high interest rates reached the level that we saw some eight or nine months ago.
How, then, will we tackle the problem? The motion before us asks that I listen sympathetically and respond positively to the four Atlantic ministers of fisheries when we meet on Monday of next week; but I hope their suggestions will be a little more constructive than the ideas which they were espousing a few years ago. However, I intend to do more than be a sympathetic listener. Contrary to what one may have been led
to believe from the remarks of the hon. members opposite, for weeks officials of my department have been concentrating their efforts on the best ways to restore the Atlantic fishery to the state of health it should and could be enjoying. I will be placing a number of options before the provincial fisheries ministers from the Atlantic coast which could be undertaken to set us on the road to recovery. They are not stop gap measures but, rather, moves that should be of long-term benefit to the industry.
I would now like to mention some of those possible options. One option, obviously, would be for the government to become directly involved or take equity in an integrated fishing company in order to learn, and also possibly to forestall an undesirable level of concentration. Another suggestion would be the nationalization of the offshore fleet to prevent large, integrated companies from exercising excessive influence over the supply of raw material and to introduce, as I said when I related some earlier figures, an element of rationalization and efficiency in the catching of offshore fish.
There are those who say that government should be a participant but not a total shareholder. That option, which I call the Panarctic model, could be one of the midway points in any decision we could reach. Obviously, we must rationalize the capturing of fish and avoid the sort of mad race for the fish that we saw last winter.
With the permission of the House, I would like to call it one o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock later this day.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
[ Translation]


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock this afternoon, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) had the floor.


Roméo LeBlanc: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we rose for lunch I had indicated a number of possible actions which I would be discussing with my provincial counterparts and with different segments of the industry. I would hope members of this House, as we come to this House for legislation, if and when that legislation is required, will support our position.
I had talked about suggestions that had been made for perhaps direct government intervention in some processing enterprise. As well perhaps the fleet should be brought together under one management system or possibly a mix of government and industry participation in order more properly
December 4, 1981

to utilize the existing capacity, and possibly reduce it in some cases.
I had started to talk about the rationalization of the harvesting capacity. A suggestion which is being looked at very seriously is one of allocating the offshore quota to participating companies on a share basis which would allow them to make their plans for harvesting and resist the traditional race for the fish which, as we saw last winter, brought about some of our present difficulties. In some cases we may want to reduce the size of the fleet. This appears to apply to the west coast fisheries. This, of course, is a program which would be undertaken in full consultation with fishermen and fishing enterprises.
There has been some suggestion that the small and medium-size processors lack the capacity to play a role in the offshore and perhaps by getting together in some consortia arrangement this would be a good way of allowing them to participate, yet not have everyone buying capacity or aggravating the fleet problem.
As far as the distribution of fish among processors is concerned, we could go for organized and national harvesting. There are those who suggest auctions as a method of making fish available to those processors who do not want to buy large trawlers.
It has been suggested that we look at reducing the cost of fuel to increase our competitiveness. I must say that this appears on the surface to be rather attractive. However, I have to say that the implication for all Canadian industry is pretty serious if we do go to one industry. There is already an effort to help fishermen and farmers with the cost of fuel, and certainly in relation to our competitors we do enjoy advantageous fuel costs.
There is one area in which some movement is necessary, and this is the area of rechanneling investment in processing. I am a believer of modernizing existing capacity, not increasing it. In many cases plants can be made quite competitive and profitable by upgrading. We have already started working with DREE in this endeavour in quite a few areas. I hope we can negotiate a federal-provincial agreement to limit the capacity of the processing sector. I know that some provinces have voluntarily restrained the processing capacity movement, but I will be taking a much firmer line on this issue to my provincial counterparts. Some are advocating foreign investment, not so much control but equity in operation, which in some cases would perhaps give us access to markets which we have traditionally been unable to enter. This will be the subject of considerable discussion in the months to come.
I have to say a word about the improvement of quality and quality consistency. We have insisted on putting some money into this program and have been quite successful in some areas. I have written to my provincial counterparts under whose jurisdiction this matter rests and asked them to regulate the landing of fish so that at least fish would be landed in the best condition, preferably bled and gutted. I will be discussing
Fisheries
this matter with the provincial ministers next Monday. To discuss this issue when so many other industries have set standards which they meet consistently shows that we still have some way to go. For example, I ask hon. members if we could even consider that non-pasteurized milk be put on the market without some considerable consumer resistance. I am not saying that fish which is sold in Canada is bad, but that we do not have a system which guarantees absolutely consistent high quality. Surely this must be a goal which we must seek.


Mr. Pepin:: Canada approved.


Roméo LeBlanc: My colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), says we should have "Canada approved." Certainly we should have "Canada approved" and we do, to some extent. However, the standard can be higher than that which we have thus far maintained.
Another question I would like to deal with is market discipline and market orderliness. I have no doubt that jawboning is not going to be sufficient in this area. Some sectors of the industry have already indicated that they believe that this is not only inevitable but desirable. Only through some legal framework which forces discipline will companies not be tempted to undercut each other in the marketplace.
I might say that the hon. member for Vancouver South has tried to make me sound as if I were against an increased effort in marketing. Obviously he knows that this is not what I was suggesting. I was suggesting that we should do the same as our best competitors-particularly the Scandinavians-to get a number of people marketing as a group, as Canadians. In some cases, of course, there may be up to six or eight partners in one marketing organization.
But the philosophy that we must catch every fish in the sea is also one that must be carefully considered. This year I advanced the idea to the industry that we should perhaps catch according to the market potential and market predictions. These quotas could always be adjusted during the season if the estimates are low. Some countries have been doing this very successfully.
Within the framework of these policies, we must make room for the protection of the small processor and the small operator. I have no doubt that whatever co-ordinated marketing effort comes about, there has to be one location where the small operators can find a haven without having to be forced into working with a major player who would, of course, overshadow him.
An hon. member has mentioned the use of fish as food aid. We are using some now and will be using more in the future and my cabinet colleagues have responded favourably to this policy. One of the difficulties is that some countries are not equipped with the holding facilities necessary to distribute and handle certain species of fish, especially program products. We are talking increasingly with CIDA about producing and preparing for the food aid program, particularly using saltfish which does not require the same amount of conservation expense.
13744

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
Over-the-side sales for species of fish in which the Canadian industry has very little interest must become organized and not left to the whims of people who may have a market because they have a relative in some part of the world. I believe if the industry stopped having a total knee-jerk reaction to this question but came in with the government in a joint operation where we could take advantage of certain markets where vessels are used to freeze fish bought directly from our fishermen, we might be able to gain some considerable advantage. I am amazed at those who advocate that Canadian fishermen should be total prisoners of the local fish merchant and that somehow it is immoral if we let those who want to come in from offshore buy about 2 per cent of the fish that we have on the east coast. I can tell the House that the fishermen do not consider it immoral. In fact, in some cases it is the only weapon they have to negotiate.
Of course, there are those who say that you can bust your way into the markets of the world, that you do not have to have agreement with the Common Market or an arrangement with foreign nations because somehow Providence has ordained that the world must buy our fish. I am afraid that is a very naive outlook. The idea that somehow it is not right for foreigners to buy fish from Canadian fishermen, possibly using their vessels to freeze fish in some cases-again in a very well controlled situation-that somehow we are betraying the plant workers, to me is akin to saying that we must have the largest warehouses in the world filled to capacity regardless of whether we have the markets.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but the time allotted to him has expired. However, he may continue if there is unanimous agreement. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roméo LeBlanc: I thank hon. members. I will finish by briefly saying that the options I have listed are being examined and discussed and we have had good working sessions with the Fisheries Council of Canada and with representatives of the industry. The problem is not new but was recognized. In some cases it has taken a more dramatic form and we are now trying to address that situation. In fact, it is only in the last week to ten days that we have had firm proposals.
As far as the federal jurisdiction is concerned, where we are responsible for the setting of quotas and their allocation through the licensing system, and for the establishment of the fleet capacity and its impact on the market, I think we have fulfilled our role well. In the two areas which escape our jurisdiction, namely the processing capacity and quality control-however, in quality control we share a joint role- unfortunately we have not had full co-operation.
That being said, the policy of trying to establish a vigorous fisheries industry which has professional fishermen, that is, people who do not see it as employment as a last resort, but people who invest their livelihood and skills into fulfilling what
is a very rewarding profession when it is managed properly. That remains the goal of this government.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in the limited time that I have available to me this afternoon, I have somehow to resist the temptation to respond to all of the areas covered by the minister in his speech. There is one area, perhaps, which I will not go into right now but requires some passing comment. It is the last comment the minister made with respect to the over-the-side sales. He said that these must become organized and that companies must get involved.
I merely want to remind the minister that during our administration we put together a rational over-the-side sales policy which included all the players and had the support of all the players. Unfortunately, it was scrapped by the minister when he resumed his responsibility of Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I say that with sadness because if he had continued he would not have been in the' difficulties in which he found himself last summer. But perhaps he likes to be in difficulty.
We meet here today in this debate in the midst of a crisis situation which is, in my opinion, unprecedented and unparalleled. A recent publication from the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy by Professor Donald J. Patton of Dalhousie University which arrived on my desk yesterday said this:
The Atlantic fishery is currently facing serious problems, with almost all major companies suffering substantial losses on their fishing operations. Poor markets, high interest rates and unprofitable fishing have led to widespread production cuts. Hundreds of employees have been laid off through plant shutdowns in a region of the country that already has high unemployment. But while there appears to be no immediate relief in sight, these problems should not obscure the long-term value and importance of the fishery as an industry-
Then he went on to say:
It is becoming increasingly clear that unless difficult policy choices and actions are taken now, Canadians will not fully benefit from the future development of their fishing industry.
When the minister spoke today we expected that he would take the House and the country into his confidence and let us hear about some of these difficult choices. We all agree they are difficult choices. Unfortunately, all we heard was the minister's usual song: blame others, blame the provinces, blame the processors, absolve yourself.
The minister reminds me of Alice in Wonderland. He is there, but he does not quite know what is going on around him. As the Mad Hatter said, it gets curiouser and curiouser.
A few days ago in this House my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), put a question to the minister with respect to the plight of one of the companies referred to by Professor Patton. He talked about the fact that this company was in serious difficulty and that unless it heard from the minister within the next few days with regard to a proposal it had before the government, it would be forced to close down. That shutdown would result in the lay-off of 2,500 people directly employed by that company and 1,600 fishermen who depend on that company.
December 4, 1981

1 am sorry the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) is not in his seat. If that company goes under, that spells doom to nine towns in Newfoundland, most of which are in the riding of Burin-St. George's. It will be a death sentence to the towns of Bonavista, Grand Bank, Fortune, Burgeo and Gaultois, and I could go on. Nine towns in the province of Newfoundland with a total population in excess of 20,000 depend exclusively on this company for employment. This company has a payroll in excess of $40 million.
I do not believe the minister is taking this seriously. If that were the only company in trouble, I suppose the proposal could be seen in isolation; but we cannot look at it in isolation because the minister and all of us know there are other companies in trouble. Other companies have proposals before the government to bail them out. We are talking about an industry that is totally Canadian owned, an industry which employs in its fish plants over 8,000 people, an industry which owns a fleet of 150 trawlers employing over 3,000 trawlermen, and an industry which produces over $500 million in goods and services in the Atlantic provinces.
We are talking about the keystone of the very fragile and weak Atlantic provinces economy. That places a particular responsibility on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc). We are entitled to expect some direction from him. We are entitled to expect some indication of assistance from him. He talks about band-aid treatment. He says he will not give in to band-aid treatment, and that is how he describes an infusion of capital. He talks about long-term solutions. Unless he applies band-aid treatment now, he can forget long-term solutions because many of these companies will be forced to close their doors, and in the process we will lose what is left of the most important and, indeed, the only important market we have, the United States market.
Where does the minister sit? He is a member of the inner cabinet. He was a party to the decision to bail out Chrysler, a multinational employing Canadians. I make no comment on that. He was a party to the decision to bail out Imperial Oil, another multinational, again employing Canadians. I make no comment on that. He was there when the government bailed out Massey-Ferguson. He was there when the government wrote off over $100 million for some obscure computer company of which we had never heard.
Where is he when the Atlantic provinces fishing industry is bleeding to death and is on its knees? He does not take the industry seriously. He thinks it is bluffing. He referred to that in his speech today. Every time the industry gets into trouble, it comes with cap in hand to the federal government. That may have been true in the past. That has happened before. It has happened several times before. It has not happened since the declaration of the 200-mile economic zone. It has happened now because of circumstances beyond the control of the industry, such as high interest rates, a softening of United States markets, increased competition as a consequence of the strengthening of the U.S. dollar, the weakening of European currencies and a change in consumer habits in the United States market.
Fisheries
We all saw it coming. The minister says he saw it coming. The minister says he warned the industry about a boom-and-bust psychology. He saw this coming and did nothing. What happened last summer when the Nickerson National Sea organization announced it was closing down three major plants, one in Nova Scotia, one in New Brunswick and one in Newfoundland, because it could no longer afford to carry inventories due to interest rates? That was in August. The minister knew, as we all did at that time, that that was merely the beginning and that the closing down of these Nickerson National Sea plants would set off a chain reaction, and it did. At one point in time, in my province alone, over 15 fish plants were down. It happened to coincide with a failure in the inshore fishery in many areas. The minister probably will come back with statistics to refute that, but let him tell that to the inshore fishermen who have to get by with little or nothing this year. It coincided with the failure of the inshore fishery, but the fact is that at that time the minister had a responsibility to move in and he did not. He did nothing.
I and others asked him to sit down with the industry because in that industry there are people who are highly professional and highly qualified. There are highly professional and skilled people within the various provincial fisheries departments. I know from my own experience with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans that there are highly skilled professionals who are probably the best fish managers in the world. I get the impression that the minister sat there in isolation and did not take their advice. Perhaps he even refused to see them. Certainly he refused to sit down with the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland who repeatedly requested meetings with him. I think in his entire tenure since 1980 he has had only one or two meetings with the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland. Indeed, during that period he has had only one meeting with the Atlantic provinces ministers. Granted, there is a meeting taking place on Monday or Tuesday in Ottawa with the Atlantic provinces ministers and the minister responsible from Quebec. I maintain that meeting is six months too late; it should have taken place late last summer or early last fall. We have lost valuable time.
Basically we are facing the problem which speaks to the need for market diversification. The minister talked about quality control. Certainly we need to improve the quality of our fish. We need to put in place incentives to produce better quality fish. However, the bottom line is that unless we diversify and reduce our dependence on the U.S. market, there will be more trouble down the road. All the band-aids or long-term solutions in the world will not address the problem.
This is not the time to talk about a reduction in production capacity or a reduction in fleet size. I was hoping the minister would talk about the problems of fleet renewal. Most of these companies face that problem. Many trawlers are out of date, antiquated and have to be renewed.
We talk about overproduction capacity. The minister cannot, like Pontius Pilate, reach for the silver bowl and

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
absolve himself irrthat area. No, he cannot absolve himself from responsibility. The minister has the power, which has been described as a draconian power, under the Fisheries Act totally to manage the industry. He has no power to manage or license plants on shore. However, the fact is that if we had a rational system of fisheries management where you do not have a boom-and-bust catching situation, the plants would not have to expand in order to accommodate that. This is part of the problem, what we used to call the glut, except it is a man-made glut.
Why does the minister not sit down when putting together a fisheries plan and rationally discuss this with the fish processors, the fisheries unions and the provinces? The minister knows where I stand on jurisdiction. He knows full well that fisheries management can no longer be the sole prerogative and responsibility of the federal government, constitutional rights notwithstanding.
The minister has to share those managerial responsibilities with the provinces, the producers, the representatives of the fishermen, whether it be the Newfoundland Fish Food and Allied Workers or the fisheries associations of the maritime provinces. He has to take them into his confidence if we are going to have a situation that is orderly fisheries management in the Atlantic provinces.
The minister has finally succeeded in antagonizing everyone. He has everyone against him including the fishermen's unions, the fishermen's associations, the fish processors and the provincial governments. Why? Because the minister has chosen in the midst of the worst crisis to face the industry to sit in his ivory tower in Ottawa and pretend that everything is fine. It is business as usual-don't get excited, don't make any waves.
I expected the minister to come to my province when these plants closed down last summer, and most are still down, and meet with the government, the Newfoundland fishermen's union and the processors. He had a chance encounter with them when he was in Marystown to preside over the launching and christening of a new fisheries patrol vessel which I had directed to be built in Marystown. He had a chance encounter, and a very unsatisfactory one at that. He does not have to take my word for this; he need only talk to the members of the Newfoundland fishermen's union, the processors and the people along the south coast of Newfoundland to know how totally unsatisfactory that encounter was and how totally unsatisfied they were with the responses they received from the minister.
All the minister does is muse and philosophize when the situation requires action, action which this minister has the power to carry out. He talks about basic restructuring and exports. Why has the minister not been able to get guarantees from the European Economic Community? It is not enough that we should allocate quotas within our zone. I agree with him that may be necessary in order to break through the tariff barrier which now discriminates against Canadian fish. However, if that is necessary, it should only be done with guarantees. At this point in time we do not have the guarantees.
Why can the minister not get the support of the Government of Canada? If the British government is providing opposition and giving him problems, why does not the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) talk to Margaret Thatcher? Their industry in terms of their total economy is not nearly as important as ours, especially in the case of the Atlantic provinces. I am sure the British government would be reasonable if they had a responsible approach from the Government of Canada.
We know full well that the German fleet is tied up with no place to fish. That should be our ace in the hole, but we have not been able to use it effectively. In my opinion, we have not been able to deal effectively with the opposition we are receiving in Brussels from the British government. That is the responsibility of the minister and his colleagues in cabinet, and nobody else.
Who is responsible for the high interest rate situation today? The Government of Canada. Who is responsible for the failure to diversify our marketing opportunities? The Government of Canada. Who is responsible for failing to meet with the industry and the provincial governments and look for and accept their advice? The government that has the major responsibility under the Fisheries Act and under the Constitution of Canada, the Government of Canada.
It is not enough to go on attacking provincial colleagues and blaming the provinces and processors, blaming everyone but yourself. The fact is it is this minister who got us into this mess. All is not hopeless, all is not lost; he still has the power to get us out of it. But I am not sure he fully appreciates or understands the seriousness of the situation.
The Lake Group may be forced to close its operation if it does not hear within the next few hours a positive response from the Government of Canada. Not only the Lake Group, but many major processing companies in the Atlantic provinces are facing the same problems, such as cash flow problems, marketing problems and bank problems. They are heavily into the banks. How long are the banks expected to carry on? How long will this minister continue to allow the banks in Montreal and Toronto to call the shots in the Atlantic provinces? We have an intolerable situation which I do not believe this minister fully appreciates.
During my brief tenure as minister of fisheries, I set up on the coast of British Columbia an advisory council that I could deal directly with and receive policy advice from. Even the minister admits that has worked well. That was the first of three advisory councils we were to establish, one in British Columbia, one in the maritime provinces and one in Newfoundland. Just like the over-the-side sales policy we put together, the minister threw that out the door as well. If we had that mechanism in place today and a minister who was prepared to listen, I suspect we would not be in the mess we are at the present time. This minister does not fully appreciate the gravity of the situation that we face in Atlantic Canada today.
December 4, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, a debate like the one we are having this afternoon clearly confirms the interest of the members of this House in an industry that is extremely important to Canada, namely the fisheries industry, and I believe that both the government members and the opposition parties realize that the basic purpose of today's debate is to find positive solutions to providing for a genuine renewal of our fisheries industry.
I listened earlier to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), Newfoundland, and I could not help smiling when he referred to various measures that should be taken, because I remember that when he was Minister of Fisheries, he gave permission for trawlers of 100 feet and over to fish in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence. In my constituency, the gulf means 400 miles of coast line, from Sept-Iles to Blanc-Sablon, including Anticosti Island. Obviously that decision was severely criticized by the inshore fishermen. What we are trying to
Fisheries
do today is to define ways of helping fishermen. There is a danger, when discussing the fisheries industry, of always thinking in terms of profits for the large processors, and forgetting the fishermen. In fact, throughout his speech, with only a few exceptions, the hon. member to whom I was listening spoke in generalities and blamed the department and the minister for the present situation in the fisheries industry.
I think it would be somewhat overconfident to say merely that the fisheries industry is doing as well as any other industry. Everyone knows what the world economic situation is like, and obviously the fisheries industry is just as sensitive to national and world development problems as other industries are. Now, what do we have to do? Trying to evaluate the situation is one thing, but finding solutions is an entirely different kettle of fish!
This morning and this afternoon, the minister talked about programs for restructuring the fisheries industry. I think there is an interesting aspect to this subject and it would perhaps be useful to invite the opposition parties, the fishermen and the co-operatives and processors to think about what is involved in restructuring the fisheries industry. In Quebec there is an additional problem because responsibility areas tend to overlap. I purposely included fishermen, co-operatives and processors, and I feel we should also involve the provinces in defining responsibility areas, because this is truly a field where all concerned should not only be consulted but should also have a say in the matter, if we are to draft legislation and regulations that will help fishermen to truly develop the industry within this sector. Of course, I could speak about fisheries throughout Canada, but I should like to see the Department of Fisheries focus its concern a little more on my part of Quebec's middle and lower north shore, because it is a region that is anxious to see a renewal of the fisheries industry.
The minister talked about thoroughly reorganizing the department and the fisheries industry, and although we do not necessarily want to be the ones to initiate such changes, neither do we want to be a step behind. We want to be treated as equal partners and we want to get our point of view across. In this respect, I must congratulate the minister who, during his eighteen months in office, has helped us tremendously to modernize our fishing facilities. When discussing fisheries or any other subject, it is very easy to talk in generalities, because in the final instance, everyone is for motherhood and against sin. Helping people is fine, but hitting on the best way to do this is another story, and I must admit that in this particular area the present minister has done excellent work in our region. I know that the member for St. John's East, Newfoundland, is familiar with my area-his sector is not very far from mine-because once you get to Blanc-Sablon, you are just opposite Sainte-Barbe, and I think the people in Old Fort Bay, Middle Bay and Saint-Paul often deal with Newfoundland.

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
In this easternmost part of Quebec, the problem is the lack of infrastructures for fisheries. There is also the marketing aspect, how to sell the fish, but if we do not have the infrastructure, our fishermen today will never be able to bring new life to the fisheries industry or be able to interest the younger generation in the industry. I see my colleague from Bonaventure-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bujold) who also obtained funds through the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in order to provide for appropriate facilities for the fisheries industry in his area, and that, too, is a tremendous boost for the Fisheries industry, not only in eastern Quebec but throughout Canada.
Another positive contribution is the fact that DREE is working together with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to provide comprehensive assistance projects. And I say this with great feeling today, because the north shore fisheries have always been neglected, and we want to put an end to this, because we have people who are highly motivated to develop this sector, and we shall no longer let ourselves be victimized- I agree with the hon. member for St. John's East, Newfoundland-by the big processors who are rushing to apply for large grants in order to build even bigger ships to provide work for a few highly modernized, very well equipped, even too well equipped fishermen, while our inshore fishermen are left to fend for themselves. Our inshore fishermen must come first on our list of priorities.
I would now like to talk about the role of research in bringing about a renewal of the fisheries industry. No one has mentioned research yet. Nevertheless, it should be one of the department's principal tools for considering solutions for the future. I think Canada is particularly fortunate in having oceans to the north, south and west: the Arctic, the Pacific and the Atlantic. We have a resource that belongs to all Canadians, and we still tend to be very conventional in how we make use of that resource. Our universities should be given a chance to develop an interest in modern approaches to the fisheries industry and to look for ways of making us far more competitive, not only on national but also on international markets.
Now that the Gulf region is gaining its own identity, I would also invite the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) to try and set aside a specific location in the Gulf area for research in Quebec. As you know, the people of Quebec have traditionally been fishermen and the Gaspe Peninsula depends on the sea and on fishing, as do the Magdalen Islands and the north shore. We would like to be able to increase our presence in the Canadian fishing industry. We shall be able to do so if the government gives us the means to be very active in the field of research. I wanted to say this because this sector has perhaps been left to cope for itself in the past. We have been content with unsophisticated fishing methods, but to be able to compete with Scandinavian and northern countries, we
need extremely sophisticated techniques in the fishing industry.
Another basic element, Mr. Speaker, is information. In my own region, we know that information is distributed, but its quality and regularity could be increased. Our fishermen, whether in Blanc-Sablon, La Tabatiere, Old Fort Bay, Middle Bay, Saint-Paul, Harrington Harbour, Cheverie, Natashquan or Riviere-au-Tonnerre, do not have enough information, and in this regard, if I may make another positive suggestion to the Minister, I would ask him to co-operate with the Department of Employment and Immigration to hold winter courses which are better adapted to the needs of our fishermen, as they have perhaps more time in that period of the year to receive information from his department. It is often said that information is power, the newspapers being called the fourth estate. I believe that it would be a good thing for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to provide this power for our own fishermen. I say this because it is a comment which I heard during our travels along the middle and lower shore. The fishermen want to fish regularly, they are not lazy as is often suggested in the industry, but they would like to be in constant communication with the department because when comes the time to innovate and to create, they would truly be well informed and would achieve a major sense of self-fulfillment and commitment, as well as greater co-operation with the department.
Another element which concerns my area and which will certainly interest the hon. members opposite, especially those from Newfoundland, is the question of quotas. In this regard, I believe that the department does not deserve to be congratulated because, while we are very proud of our minister and even of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials, a major mistake was made this year when setting the quotas, and as a result a ban on fishing has to be imposed at the beginning of October. A week later, the department reconsidered its decision and said that there was no problem and that fishing could continue. In our region, this brought about the early closing of some fish processing plants. I wonder, Mr. Minister, if it might not be advisable to have separate quotas for the province of Newfoundland and for the province of Quebec, at least for that zone of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, so as to make sure that there is no conflict between the quotas of either province. Of course, any man fishing with a trawler of 100 feet or more and working with the latest in the way of fishing gear is way ahead of a competitor using traditional fishing methods. I draw that to the attention of the minister and, if possible, I would like to hear his ideas on that because, with respect to quotas, the fishermen are not on the same footing, and I think it is important to do justice to our inshore fishermen.
Another point I would like to raise has to do with the quality and processing of the fish and the new plan. I think that the department wants to innovate in fisheries, not only in Quebec
December 4, 1981

but in all fishing zones in Canada generally. In Matane this week officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans held an important meeting with groups of fishermen, and the minister gave them a few reports to look over, and those fishermen and those associations made a few remarks to the minister. I hope that the time for meetings is not over or drawing to a close, but that such meetings will only be suspended for a while and that the minister will take concrete measures to implement his policies.
I know that DREE is willing to invest fairly large sums of money in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and that people are ready for action. We must not try to do everything at once of course, but we must take one step forward because if we do not stop consulting people right and left, both at the federal and the provincial levels, we risk discouraging the fishermen. The people want to feel that the department and the minister are willing and ready to act. They have to get this feeling otherwise the fishermen will no longer show their good faith and willingness because they will be inclined to say: it is always the same thing, we always get the same statements and we are no longer interested in co-operating with the department.
So I would urge the minister, after the Matane meeting, to get things moving, to free some funds so that in 12 to 18 months from now, we may see the results of his political will. One last point, because I think my time is almost up, concerning the responsibilities of the federal fisheries department and the provincial level. It is crucial, Mr. Speaker, that the spheres of authority of all parties involved be clearly defined and identified. We are quite happy that the constitutional debate is over, but it is most important, now that there will be negotiations on the distribution of power that the definition and the limitations of all governments be clearly identified, otherwise it becomes a buck-passing game in which each side says : this is a provincial responsibility or this is a federal responsibility and the buck goes back and forth. We have to put an end to this administrative buck-passing game and define clearly the spheres of authority of each party and of each institution involved.
I have here a book written by an author from Sept-Iles on the North Shore, Louis-Armand Santerre, entitled "De Sept-Iles a Blanc Sablon, 750 kilometres par voie d'eau." The book explains or tells the history of the Quebec lower and mid North Shore, which covers half of my riding of Manicouagan.
I would urge the speakers who will follow me to make down-to-earth statements because some of the people I am talking about, do not even have a television set and come from a long line of fishermen. That is most unfortunate because often, when listening to hon. members and even to ministers during our proceedings in this House, we get a feeling that things are being said generally, vaguely, so that ultimately no one in particular is concerned and no specific guidance is given to those who will have to decide on the measures to be taken to
Fisheries
find solutions to present problems in the fishing industry. I am being explicit because our people have to know, to hear exactly what solutions are being put forward by the opposition. I myself, as a member of the party in power, am trying to be critical of the department itself while avoiding sterile speeches condemning this or that individual. What is important is finding solutions. I insist that hon. members who speak after me must concentrate on solutions.
All hon. members must denounce the problems facing us, that the fishing industry is now up against. But the people of whom I spoke a while ago would like to hear from those hon. members who are directly concerned with fisheries what proposals and solutions are possible. That is very important, because in our meetings with our constituents these bread and butter issues are always being raised. Here, we hear very seldom about them. We hear a lot about hon. members' pious wishes and good intentions, as well as their rather vague ideas, but nobody ever really tries to define the problem. What I should like the minister to tell me is how we are going to proceed to modernize our fishing gears? How, with the assistance of our universities, are we going to develop new techniques to catch and condition fish? What new techniques could we develop? How could we secure the co-operation of universities, co-ops, industries, fishermen and the various provincial governments? How could we ease the regulations to make it easier for fishermen to get out there and catch fish? How could we guarantee fishermen a minimum income, when it is not possible to extend the scope of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation Act over a wider territory than the one already identified?
Could we not set up for the fishing industry something similar to the Canadian Wheat Pool as we did for wheat, to guarantee our fishermen income stability, because the problem of this industry stems from the fact that there is no income security there, a factor which discourages our youth from joining the industry, while western farmers enjoy income security thanks to a relevant legislation. Fishermen in my area do not have income security and certainly would like to get it. The whole issue of unemployment insurance benefits for seasonal fishermen is being raised again: they will try to find ways to find additional income. That is why I wanted to call hon. members' attention to this problem. I am aware that my time has run out, but I merely wish that by next year, we might have taken a step forward in the right direction. I am most grateful to hon. members for listening to me and to you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to express my views.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak in this special debate which I hope will highlight the financial crisis which presently faces the east coast fishing industry. I submit to you, sir, that it is a great day in the life of anyone when he can go fishing. This

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
activity, whether it be for pleasure, protein or profit, is being seriously restricted at the present time in Atlantic Canada. This is a fact which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) learned firsthand in November when he had the pleasure of visiting my riding and I had the honour of hosting the visit.
Within the past week, those of us in the official opposition who are interested in the problems facing the fishing industry met with the leaders of this industry from the Pacific region, from New Brunswick, from Prince Edward Island, from Nova Scotia and Quebec as well as Newfoundland. All of these people told the same story, that unless a miracle occurs between now and the end of June, 1982, the entire industry on both coasts faces complete and total financial collapse.
When we consider the number of people, towns, cities, villages and auxiliary industries that are dependent on the fishing industry, this is truly a startling revelation. Many of us who have been associated with the industry for a long time knew from firsthand knowledge that all was not well in certain sectors of it, but few of us realized the depth of despair and the pessimistic outlook which was portrayed by industry leaders.
Despite a remarkable resource development and recovery since the 200-mile limit was declared in 1977 and a favourable outlook for further stock growth of codfish in the Gulf and east of Newfoundland, the entire east coast fishing industry is operating today in a fog of uncertainty. National Sea Products, one of Canada's largest fishing companies, has seen its financial situation deteriorate steadily. On November 4, it put out a press release stating that the company's net loss for the nine months ending October 3, 1981, was in excess of $3 million. Over the 21-month period ending October 31 the company's net working capital declined from $20.8 million to half a million dollars, yet the minister seems to think that this is not a serious situation.
H.B. Nickerson and Sons, another Canadian fishing company, has had similar cash flow problems. The Lake Group mentioned by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) is also facing serious financial problems. This large Newfoundland company closed its trawler operations at Grand Bank, Fortune and Gaultois and I believe that only the Fortune plant has been reopened.
In all cases, spokesmen for these companies gave similar reasons for their financial problems. They cited four principal factors for the rapid decline in the industry, namely, growing market weakness for their products, high interest rates, operating cost increases and inappropriate government policies.
It would seem that the soft markets for Canadian fish have been due to weak demand in the United States in recent months for several key products, plus what I can only call the strained attitude which seems to exist between Canada and the United States, brought about by the hamhanded manner in which this government implemented its Foreign Investment Review Act as well as its national energy policy. We see this attitude reflected in the stalemate which exists in the negotiations on the fishery and boundary treaties covering the controversial Georges Bank area.
I fear that Canadian fishermen will long remember the lack of this government's ability to reach an amicable political solution on the Georges Bank issue which, I submit, could have been obtained if a conciliatory attitude had been taken by Canada when dealing with our best friends and our largest trading partner.


Roméo LeBlanc: What do you advocate-that we give in?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister interrupts and asks what I am advocating. I will repeat it so that even he will understand. I have great admiration for the minister and I know he has worked hard but he could work a little harder on this one.
I said that I submit the situation could have been different if there had been a more conciliatory attitude taken by Canada when dealing with our best friend and our biggest trading partner. That is what I advocate.
The lines of communication are down. They are not clear between our two countries. There is too much static. No one will ever convince me that further consultation rather than confrontation would not have brought about a more desirable settlement of what I call a very thorny issue between our two countries. Our fish markets are soft as well because of a relative drop in several European currencies which has eroded Canada's price advantage. There have also been very weak prices and poor demand for Canadian herring in Europe. This is due to the resumption of the North Sea herring fishery.
Another item affecting our sales has been tariff and nontariff barriers in Spain, Japan, the European Economic Community and in Portugal. These have been raised in an attempt to force Canadians to agree to granting further fish allocations inside our 200-mile limit. This, of course, should not be happening.
When speaking in Marystown on October 3, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) said that there had to be realism when it comes to negotiating with other countries for advantageous entry into their markets or for the removal of barriers to those markets. He also said that if it costs us a few thousand tons of fish from our waters to sell many more thousands of tons of Canadian fish products, then we must assess the deal and not perpetuate some myth that we must catch every fish in our zone. Such a concept is fool's gold, he said, and that what is required to achieve entry into markets must be done.
This is high sounding rhetoric, and the minister is obviously following the course he expounded. He is giving away fishing quotas to foreign fleets-within our 200-mile zone. When he does not give them what they think they should have, they come and take what they feel they are entitled to. We learned this fact only on Thursday of last week when I pointed out that 25 Spanish draggers and two Mexican trawlers were fishing on Flemish Cap in the northwest Atlantic fisheries zone. They have reportedly been overfishing in that one small area near the Grand Banks where cod stocks are endangered, thereby making a mockery out of this country's quotas on fish.
December 4, 1981

I asked the minister in committee if he had any idea as to how many tons of fish the Spanish and the Mexicans are catching, what effect this overfishing would have on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland cod stocks, and what action the government was taking to encourage these nations to discontinue their destructive practices. The minister's officials replied that they did not know how much fish was being taken because neither Spain nor Mexico are members of NAFO. Therefore, they are not obligated in any way to abide by NAFO rules or to report catches.
We were told that the impact on our cod stocks is indirect. The government is making representations, through NAFO, against the countries following this practice. I think this points out a weakness in our Department of External Affairs. I submit that Canada, through that department, should be making diplomatic protests, loud and long, to the Spaniards and the Mexicans. This apparently has not been done.
Since the minister holds strong views which, as I just reported, he stated in Marystown, I think he should also tell us how many tonnes of fish he has given away to foreign countries and what advantages he has received for Canada with regard to getting entry into their markets. I am sure he is aware, and if he is not, I will tell him now, that this policy is not acceptable to the Canadian industry, for although the industry desires to get new markets, it is not prepared to be blackmailed into giving tonnage to others in return for market concessions until all or any benefits which we may receive as a nation are given or frittered away. This is not the way to manage Canada's fisheries resources.
I mentioned a moment ago that the lines of communications between Canada and the United States are cluttered with static and the message seems unclear. This analogy is equally true within Canada. In my own riding, for example, in River-port, Nova Scotia, the Riverport Seafoods plant burnt down along with the government wharf on the afternoon of September 26.


Walter David Baker: I saw that.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) says that he saw the wreckage of that plant. I took him out and showed it to him. The fire resulted in disaster and desolation. This disaster caused a loss of employment to more than 300 people. It is estimated that the loss of the plant would take some $4.5 million annually-


Jean-Luc Pepin: What did you do about it?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -out of the economy of one county, Lunenburg County. This plant was a jewel in the Nickerson group of fisheries companies owing to the work ethic of the people who reside in that particular area. It seems old fashioned to say that these people still believe in the old but time honoured code that they should give a honest day's work for an honest day's Pay-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Fisheries


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: They also ask for unemployment insurance benefits only as a last resort. As soon as the plant was destroyed, I wrote to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, informing them of the loss. I asked them to take whatever steps were necessary, and to meet with company officials and indicate their plans for the reconstruction of the wharf. This was necessary, of course, for the wharf is used by the public and the large fishing fleet of both company owned and privately-owned ships. However, since the fire, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has played cat and mouse with the citizens of Riverport in Lunenburg County. He obviously does not know or he does not care about the depth of their concern over the daily loss of their employment opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I submit that the minister has added unnecessarily to their anxiety and worry over the future.
Again, on Tuesday, I asked the minister in committee what his plans were for the reconstruction of the wharf at Riverport. He replied, "The company in question has to decide if it is going to rebuild, and as soon as there is a firm commitment to rebuild, we obviously will be preparing the plans which might be slightly different from those for the previous wharf." In all honesty, I suppose that that type of answer is better than nothing. However, I ask the minister and the government, which has two cabinet ministers from Nova Scotia: why is it impossible to get at least one direct answer from anyone over on that side which would indicate that they plan to rebuild that wharf at Riverport in Lunenburg County? There has been a wharf on that site for decades. The fishing fleet and the homes of the captains and the fishing crews are there. I submit that Riverport citizens will not easily accept or readily forget the form of shell game that this minister seems intent on playing with their fortunes and their future. I ask the minister to reconsider his stand on that issue immediately, and since the wharf reconstruction is nothing more than economic pump priming, that he immediately start with plans for its replacement.
Another factor affecting the fishing industry has been the high interest rate policy of the government. This policy has increased the industry's fixed costs, and especially inventory holding costs, to which such a seasonal industry is especially vulnerable. In addition, operating costs, especially those for fuel, for fishing gear and for labour have been outpacing general inflation while market slumps have kept the over-all market price for the product below cost.
This government has not provided any help whatsoever to assist the fishing industry to overcome its high fuel costs and its bloated interest costs, which are a direct result of government policy and for which the cabinet ministers in the House and, in fact, the entire government, must assume entire responsibility. In fact, on November 30, 1981, in response to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), the minister said, "interest and fuel increases are only"-what did he call it? He said they were "irritants".

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
They are some irritants! It reminds me of Winston Churchill's famous phrase: "Some chicken, some neck." Some irritants, the government's fuel price increases and the high interest costs!
While these factors have triggered the current crisis, the cumulative impact of federal fisheries policy since the mid 1970s has so weakened this industry economically that it cannot withstand the present downturn. Licensing and quota allocation policies have induced too many participants to enter the fisheries industry. This has increased and concentrated fish landings in the summer when the fish flesh is soft. It is not of premium quality, and the markets are weak.
Seasonality, I say to Your Honour, is the most serious structural weakness in the industry today. The minister has the full responsibility. He has told us many times that he has the responsibility for controlling the Atlantic fishery. Therefore, he must take full responsibility for this unfortunate situation. Today, when the minister was speaking, he referred to me, for which I thank him. One always likes to hear one's riding mentioned in the House. The minister referred to "The hon. member for South Shore" when he said that it was he, the minister, who had resisted the expansion of the offshore fleet. I am like the minister, and I, too, wish the debate were a little less structured because we could perhaps get our points across a little better. However, at that time we were pointing out that some of the fleet was obsolete. In fact, some ships became so old that their continued use would endanger and could now endanger the lives of their crews. We were also saying that, to be competitive, the industry should upgrade its ships to take advantage of new technology, including some freezer trawlers for the inshore as well as the offshore fleet. That is what we were saying at the time.
Today the minister also mentioned some of the options he is considering. I hope I am quoting him rightly because I do not want to misquote him. One option was to buy into one of the large companies in order to learn more about its managing policies. He also said that the government may bring the fleet in under one management system. In other words, what he said indirectly was that the government is thinking about nationalizing the fishing industry-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -which is comparable to that which has already been done in the oil and gas industry. This is precisely the worry and the concern of the entire industry. If it is carried out, the government will have to raise the taxes of all Canadians even higher in order to bolster its unemployment insurance fund.
I hope the minister will understand when I say that I believe Canadians should have some freedom to operate a business in a free democracy. Therefore, I am opposed to direct government intervention in the fishing industry. The government has clearly demonstrated that it cannot operate the railroads. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) will have to agree with that, as he has been apologizing for weeks. The government cannot operate the Post Office. It cannot operate the airlines.
In fact, I have come to the view that it cannot operate anything. Therefore, socializing the fishing industry may well spell disaster for all segments of the industry.
I now come back to the minister's speech in Marystown. That was a beauty! The minister said, "Quality not only should be upgraded, it will be." I wonder how often 1 have heard him make those statements. Despite his acknowledgement that there is a need for better fish quality, this government has consistently refused to require that all fish be gutted, washed and iced at sea, largely because of opposition. The minister is getting it from certain groups of fishermen. This is difficult for me to understand because, speaking on a more personal note, when I and some friends built our first dragger in 1947, we followed the course of cleaning and icing our fish at sea in order to land prime quality. That was in 1947. The only alternative to landing a better quality than one does by icing the fish at sea is to establish a Canadian fleet of freezer trawlers. That would enhance quality. Technology has designed freezers that will work efficiently in small areas. Freezer trawlers can be anywhere from 60 feet in length, but for some unknown reason this type of concept or program has never been promoted by the minister.
Again referring to the minister's speech that he made in Marystown, he complained that the provinces licensed too many processing plants. He said that in the case of Newfoundland that was done by more than 200 per cent. This statement causes me to ask the minister directly: if the provinces have excessive processing capacity, why does the minister aggravate the problem by promoting and subsidizing over-the-side sales, that is, direct from the fishermen to foreign factory ships? The minister is simply compounding that problem.


Roméo LeBlanc: They do not buy.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The minister says they do not buy, Mr. Speaker. I will accept that, and I will deal with that in a moment.
But this policy diverts raw material and potential employment opportunities away from Canadian processors, thus creating unrealistic price expectations that are incompatible with the private sector development of the industry.
I see that my time is almost up and I will conclude as quickly as I can, Mr. Speaker.
I believe that the inshore fishermen should receive the same price from the Canadian processors that is offered by communist factory ships. However, if the government can subsidize the factory ships of communist countries by guaranteeing them additional catches of squid or other fish species if they do not fill their holds with mackerel or herring, then I believe the federal government should pay the difference between the processors offered price and the foreign factory ships through the fisheries prices support board. This should be done in the form of a subsidy and given to our inshore fishermen.
In the long run, if that type of policy were followed it would bring a greater over-all return to Canada than that received
December 4, 1981

under the present policy. Also, it would be fair to all fishermen and workers, and it would not favour only a select few, which is happening under the present policy.
To place the fishery on a profitable footing in the medium to long term I submit that we must establish policies leading to the restructuring of the entire industry. I submit that the Canadian fishing industry is well placed to make a significant and ongoing net contribution to national and regional wealth, but this can only be achieved by the private sector if it is able to make some profit.


Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, the minister and my honoured colleague have addressed a number of the issues, which clearly shows that far from failing to foresee the problems currently facing the Atlantic fishing industry, the government has warned all the participants right from the beginning of the pitfalls and the problem areas which would have to be dealt with on a continuing basis if the promise of the 200-mile fishing zone were to be fully realized for the benefit of all.
I have just a word to say on the 200-mile limit. Since the extension of the Canadian jurisdiction to 200 miles offshore, on the east coast and in Canada generally we have increased our share of the total catch of groundfish. This has increased the market value of Canadian fisheries production. In fact, a study recently completed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, entitled "Canada's Fish Markets for the 1980s", forecast that Canada could export $3.25 billion worth of fish and fish products. This could be achieved by 1985. This is a 44 per cent increase in real earnings over 1980. The study reported that, to reach this goal, the quality of Canadian fisheries products must be improved if they are to appeal to the sophisticated tastes of consumers in other countries.
Since the implementation of the 200-mile limit, I do not feel that our industry has grown to the extent that the policies have tried to make possible. In my view, the industry has not done anything about meeting the requirements of the export markets. We may put the blame on the federal government for some things, but surely we cannot blame the government for the fact that food cannot be sold in world markets. Nor can we put the blame on the minister. The minister has tried over the past few years, and has discussed measures with the industry which he has proposed they adopt, to increase the market value of our groundfish and other fish.
There are many factors which have caused the distressing state of our east coast fisheries. I will dwell on four only. First is markets. This year I have seen intensive fishing of groundfish by the offshore fleet. This was done even after a poor 1980 year. The fleet caught its quota in the first three or four months of the season to the detriment of other areas, mine in particular. I saw the haddock they caught. Some fishermen had never caught haddock before and some plants had never processed haddock before. When our season began, our own industry could not participate in that market, which had been there for years, because of the dumping by the offshore fleet and by the dumping of the processors into the existing markets.
Fisheries
The big four fisheries firms compete among themselves. They dump into an existing market. They catch their quota right at the beginning of the fishing season. Some of the European competitors can provide better quality, and with the favoured exchange rate there is a serious marketing problem for Canadians. We have not been able to overcome the tendency of the big four to control their existing markets and to fail to find better markets or to put better fish on the existing markets.
Another problem is quality about which I shall speak later. But first I want to speak about our high interest rates. 1 have not seen any of the provinces, who are directly responsible for some of those processing plants, get into the fray by helping the processing companies. Instead, they come to the federal government. I am sure some solution will be found, but I would like to see some effort on the part of the provinces in coming to a solution.
Another problem is overcapacity. This year we saw plants open which had never before operated at that particular time of year. In fact, some had not operated at all for quite some time. We may well have overcapacity in some of the fishing areas. Perhaps our vessels will have to go looking for new sources of fish beyond the 200-mile limit and develop some of the underutilized species. We have not risen to that challenge since the 200-mile limit was imposed. This too is one of the main reasons that we are suffering at this time.
My colleagues have discussed the three basic factors which must be part of any analysis of the ill health of the fishing sector, namely the resource, the capital and labour employed in both harvesting and processing, and last, but certainly not least, is the marketplace. I have already discussed in general form some of the marketplace factors which I think have existed this last year.
At the outset I wish to remind hon. members opposite that time and again, even before fisheries' jurisdiction was extended to 200 miles, the minister emphasized the fact that while Canadians were gaining a fishing zone, they were also losing an excuse for poor performance in the fishery. The time has come when we can no longer excuse ourselves for poor quality fishery products and inability to compete.
Until now we have been unable to control the marketplace, yet we have, off the east coast, one of the greatest potentials for industry, particularly if one considers that we are dealing with food and the need for sources of food which exist in the world today and will exist in the future. This subject has been much talked about but we have never taken the concrete action required to control the marketplace rather than allowing the marketplace to control us as is the case today.
Obviously, there are some aspects of the marketplace which we cannot control. We cannot set the world price, nor can we demand that people eat Canadian fish rather than fish caught by fishermen from other countries, just as we cannot demand that people not eat chicken or pork.

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
There are some aspects to the industry which are under our control and upon which we must take action. We must stop fishing in a general way and begin fishing in earnest to meet market requirements. First we must determine, before the net is put into the water, where there is a market, and what product will sell. If we find we have a particular species which would sell in the market, we should offer a top quality product so that we may obtain the top price.
I would like to turn now to processing, quality and marketing. I believe that if we on the east coast can improve the quality of our fish, our marketing capabilities will follow. The processing, quality and marketing policies are also in the process of changing dramatically. Of course, processing is an integral part of the fisheries policy because it is the processors who provide a market for the fishermen's product. The processor also provides much of the shore-based employment in the region.
The primary responsibility for this sector lies with the provincial governments. However, the federal government remains involved in areas such as inspection regulations, export marketing and regional economic development.
Quality enhancement was one of the most important aspects of fisheries policies which were discussed in the recent document called, "Policy for Canada's Atlantic Fisheries in the 1980s". A major program has already begun. It will be maintained in an effort to ensure that the quality of Canadian fish products will continue to improve.
We have had a fishing inspection program for many years which was aimed in the beginning to ensure the health and safety of consumers. However, steps have already been taken to improve quality. For example, the department has given financial assistance to help upgrade handling and storage facilities. The department has provided equipment to the inshore fishermen to improve the on-board handling, off-loading and dock-side handling and transportation. These measures have helped but, we are told, much remains to be done. The implementation of this assistance is what I am concerned about and what I will be watching for in the next few months.
After extensive consultation with people in the fishing industry, the government has embarked on a major quality enhancement program. The major elements of the program involve vessel certification, quality protection on board, dockside grading onloading, dockside handling and transportation to plants, improved quality control in processing plants and finally, finished product grade standards.
In terms of vessel certification, regulations are being amended to require that all vessels have adequate on-board facilities for storing and chilling the fish in a manner which will preserve its quality.
On-board quality protection is an area in which Canadian fishermen have not measured up as well as their competitors. Competitive industries require that fish be bled, gutted and iced on board and prohibit the use of forks and pumps which damage the edible portion of the fish, and they insist that the fish be stored at depths which prevent physical damage. In
many sectors of the Canadian fishery, all of these prohibited practices are in use. I know that in this area the minister has given an ultimatum to fishermen about bleeding and gutting. However, I do feel that there are instances during certain times of the year when fish are caught that it is hard to believe that they would be of better quality by having them bled and gutted. I hope through consultation and meetings with the fishermen that this problem will be considered.
The department proposes that Canada should at least adopt the practice of chilling or icing the fish on board and restricting the depth of storage to 90 centimeters or less to prevent damage. I can assure the minister that in my area a good percentage of the fishermen are doing this already. There are perhaps other areas where fishermen are not doing this, and that may be one of the quality problems. It was not quality which prevented the sale of haddock last spring and summer. Those fishermen had had good markets and good prices for their fish. It was the fact that the inventories of the big companies, which the offshore fleet had caught so early in the spring, had been dumped on the market that brought the prices down. Haddock is not a commodity which we find in many other areas of the European markets coming into the United States. It happened to be a good selling product in the southern part of the province and this was detrimental.
Returning to the measures which are already in place, the discussion paper went on to say that by making these measures universal as well as by paying higher prices for fish gutted and bled on board, the department hopes to see a major improvement in quality. I have already stated in the House that I do not feel that gutting and bleeding fish is the only measure which makes for top quality fish. When fishing boats are out for extended periods of time, fish should be bled and gutted before processing back on shore, but when fish are returned almost immediately it is hard to believe that bleeding and gutting would make the fish of better quality.
Another area considered by the discussion paper was dockside grading standards which are being developed at this time. The standards will be based on firmness, odour, exterior appearance and degree of bruising or blood spotting. As previously noted, the department stated that first quality fish would be those bled and gutted on board, and I repeat that I question this being the only way to produce first quality fish.
If this program is to be successful, a concentrated program to train and/or licence graders is essential. To my knowledge there is no quality training program in Nova Scotia which would upgrade the quality of fish in the processing industry. The proposal now being considered is to elicit the help of the provinces in this task to undertake the training at fisheries training schools and in colleges.
If quality is a prime consideration, I certainly hope that the provinces play their part in the program.
The quality enhancement program at dockside will prohibit the use of forks and pumps which damage the edible portion of the fish. In addition, the department is working on a port-byport basis to ensure an adequate water supply at all unloading ports. It is hoped that there will be a fully approved water or
December 4, 1981

modified unloading system at each port by 1985, according to the discussion paper.
I welcome this because one of the chief ports in my province, the town of Digby, has a bad water supply problem and has not been able to find funding under DREE. Perhaps in the renegotiation of the DREE agreement, there will be some assistance in solving this problem.
Guidelines are being developed for good manufacturing practices which will ensure the production of high quality products. Voluntary compliance with the guidelines will begin this year and the possibility of including them in the regulations which govern plant registration will be considered.
The department is also drafting a finished product grade standard for a number of products including crabs, frozen pickerel fillets, frozen sockeye and pink salmon, groundfish fillets, frozen herring fillets and cured herring products. These graded products will be subjected to inspection, and the granting of an export licence will be conditional on their meeting the standards. I believe this will achieve one of the expectations of the industry respecting marketing better quality products.
In the marketing field the major new direction outlined in the discussion paper is the initiation of an export licensing system, and on that point, I remind the House that the minister has been seeking an orderly marketing system for the past number of years. I do not think the hon. member who spoke just before me was implying that we should register a complaint because the two countries to which he was referring are fishing on the open seas. They have a right to the open seas, as does any other country. Until there is a law of the sea agreement, we would not have any jurisdiction to oust them from the open seas beyond our 200-mile jurisdiction. If we did, I am sure that would be considered a major provocation.


Walter David Baker: Fish war.


Coline M. Campbell: I would not even call it a fish war. I think it would be a provocation against a state. It is unfortunate that the two countries referred to do not belong to NAFO.
There was some mention about the EEC agreement, and we must remember that Canada negotiated to get orderly marketing arrangement with the EEC. Only recently has that been ratified by the EEC and, to my knowledge, the Canadian provinces and processors which were opposed to this have not stated whether or not it should be ratified by this country. However, the process of the negotiations did involve the provinces and the processors. It is my understanding that a decision will be made very shortly on the EEC agreement.
I know time is passing. There are many problems, but I believe they can be solved. This fisheries minister has always been able to sit down and discuss problems. It is a matter of the industry showing good faith. I remember back in 1974 and 1975 when this minister brought in a support program for the groundfish industry, which was failing at that time. The
Fisheries
industry promised it would come up with better standards and better marketing conditions for its fish. It seems to me that those conditions have not improved since then, and I for one did not feel it was necessary at that time for assistance from the federal government. I felt that the industry should have improved its own fish operations because there clearly was irresponsibility on the part of some of the big companies in expanding to meet a demand which they were not working to increase in the marketplace. I wish the minister luck with the problem. It is a major one, but I know he has resolved other problems in the past. He is having a meeting with the provincial ministers on Monday. To my knowledge, he has been meeting with representatives of the Fisheries Council over the last few months at least every six weeks. This demonstrates his willingness to discuss the problem. There may be some hon. members opposite who are not as willing to look at this problem.
I speak from experience because last spring when the problem arose with respect to the haddock fishery in South West Nova and at the southern end of my province, the minister met with both fishermen and processors. A $14 million stabilization plan was brought forward by the Fisheries Prices Support Board. However, the people who had put the inventory into the market were not willing to accept the plan and, to the best of my knowledge, did not come back with any alterations to the plan, and have yet to come forward respecting that $14 million program for haddock inventories.
I am pleased to have taken part in this debate today. I would have liked to comment on other matters such as sector management, which I feel needs to be discussed. I can see that the general over-all feeling respecting sector management is good in the sense that there will be Gulf sector, Newfoundland sector, Scotia sector and Fundy sector. However, there are problems which are worrying the people. The resource in a given area should be for the fishermen in that area, and there should be no lines drawn, particularly in the Scotian shelf area, between different areas. I realize that there will be discussions on sector management before its full implementation, and I look forward to some of those discussions.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I too am happy to participate in the discussion this afternoon on the fishing industry on the east coast. Over the years the east coast fishery has been a valuable sector of the economy of Atlantic Canada, but in the last number of years it has been declining in importance, and we have had a great number of problems in the industry.
This afternoon my comments will be about a proposal the Department of Fisheries and Oceans is considering. It is a proposal regarding transferable property rights. I read a paper on this matter and, according to my understanding of the contents of that paper, one objective of the proposal is to allocate to certain sectors of the industry the right to own the fish that are in the oceans. They will have the right to catch those fish at places which are convenient to their operations. Another objective of the proposal is to provide for a more uniform and even flow of fish to the processors in order to

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
avoid a boom and bust or a feast or famine situation. I agree with this objective, and I can certainly endorse the principle, but there are some concerns I have about the proposal which I would like to voice at this time.
As I said earlier, the paper is a note on transferable property rights. It defines the proposal, explains its application and briefly discusses the benefits and some of the problems which could be expected.
The report defines transferable property rights as a distribution of fish quotas to individual fishing enterprises which may catch the assigned quotas at whatever time and, in principle, by whatever method they choose. Transferability implies that the quotas can be sold, traded, loaned, rented, etc. as can any element of private property. It tries to clarify that they would not constitute personal property as such, but once allocated initially by the Crown, there should be an implicit notion of contract which would protect the recipient against arbitrary withdrawal of the right. Nonetheless, it is almost certain that the federal government would enact regulations to place some restrictions on freedom of transferability to prevent quotas concentrating in too few hands, or in foreign ownership, for example. One of my concerns is that these quotas will be assigned to certain companies, and on the east coast at the moment, unfortunately, there are large fishing companies which are in extremely poor financial condition. They are almost bankrupt. If, heaven forbid, they do go broke, I am concerned that their rights might be transferred to other companies which may not even be located in the same province. Those companies would then have control of the fish and take it to that other province, eliminating completely a fishing industry in the former province. That is one of my basic concerns about this proposal.
The paper suggests that this proposal could in principle be applied throughout the industry, but for practical reasons it is most feasible to first test the concept in the offshore sector. The first and most important step in the application of the policy would be a division of the total quota, the total allowable catch, in a given stock among fleet sectors. Once the offshore share of the TAC is determined as a percentage, this amount of fish would be allocated among trawler operators over a certain long period of time and according to some initial formula. The major benefit of the transferable property right according to the proposal, as I understand it, is that many of the problems we now struggle with under the common property system will be eliminated. That may be so. Only time will tell.
We are all aware of the race mentality which is a result of fleets naturally trying to maximize their share of a quota. The result has been short seasons which operate regardless of when fish are schooling. Large fleets are maintained to maximize the catch, but they sit idle for long periods of time after the quotas have been caught.
Similarly, processing plants are pushed to their limit during the season and then must lay many of their workers off when
the glut of work disappears. After all, the fish have been caught, the processing plants have to lay off the workers. These feast and famine cycles have plagued the industry as long as the government has found it necessary to impose limitations on the period of the fishing season.
We must recognize that the problem is not an industrygenerated one, but an infliction caused by the government's decision to regulate. I am not saying we should not act to protect our fishing resource, but the problem is created by the government, so we have a responsibility to act to solve it. For that reason, we must examine very seriously any proposal which changes in a very major way our existing fishery. However, before embracing it as our survivor, let us examine it critically to see if it truly is a superior system.
The introduction of transferable property rights would be a complete reversal of our current theory of fish ownership and resource management. Presently we expect fish to be common property. Harvesting of it is controlled by licensing and restriction of the season. The transferable right claims that fish should not be common property but should be allocated by a yet undetermined system to the fishing enterprises. In theory, the race to harvest would end and the fishermen could concentrate their efforts on economical and efficient methods. That is something we all want. This would logically lead to a much more consistent flow of fish from the trawlers to the plants, eliminating the boom-and-bust aspect and the race mentality.
The discussion paper points out that the fishery is the last major resource industry where participants have no property rights in the resource itself. This is undoubtedly correct. However, we must be concerned about our method of distribution of the ownership. The concept is one that is most important in a country which operates under the rules of a free marketplace. Ownership of a resource as important as fish is of great economic value. If we do not distribute that resource fairly or equally, it will be very hard for any government to justify seizing the property for redistribution. In fact, the proposal of giving away a resource owned by the Canadian people is an important consideration we should all reflect upon. The rights to fish present to any owner a great possibility to generate a profit. The fish in the Atlantic Ocean are of great value. We should determine the cost of that licence. Will it simply reflect the cost of the paper work and administration, or will it reflect the true economic benefits gained by the new owner? The answer to those questions depends on how we define property rights.
Let us at this time take a close look at the beneficiaries of the transferable property rights and just how they may respond to its enactment.
The trawler fleets currently are of sufficient number to be able to harvest a large number of fish over a short period of time. That is what happened last summer. The trawlers caught the allowable catch for the year in a very short period. Consequently, the season closed. The fish plants closed and a great many of the plant workers were out of work after a very few weeks.
December 4, 1981

With the elimination of a formal season, the fleets will concentrate their efforts when and where the fish are schooling. This will result in a much more efficient harvesting of the stocks and a more even supply of fish to the processing plants. This is something we all desire. The probable result is a gradual elimination of older, less efficient trawlers which would lead to employment for less men but over a longer period of time. This will effectively lead to even more fishermen being out of work.
I hope the minister realizes the likely consequence of the establishment of the transferable property rights, and is prepared to try to establish alternative employment opportunities for those affected. That is one of my main concerns. We will have fewer people working longer periods of time. It is an important goal to try and attain. However, there will be greater numbers of people out of work. They will not be able to find alternative work.
The processing plants will be subjected to even more substantial changes. A more constant supply of fish will eliminate the peak period when all of our processing plants are running at 100 per cent production levels. It is reasonable to foresee a large number of the small, older and outdated plants going out of business. Not only will many jobs be eliminated, but this will likely happen in areas such as Prince Edward Island where smaller plants exist. They will lose out. The larger centres will benefit.
Our discussion today centres on the plight of our fish processing industry and the discussions the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) will have with his east coast provincial counterparts on Monday. I certainly hope that the minister will suggest that transferable property rights be examined as a possible solution. I hope at that time he recognizes it for what it is, a plan to stabilize the cyclical nature of the industry.
The fact that the industry is geared to the cycle will mean further strains on it in order to adjust. The transferable property right is at best a partial solution. The consequence and responsibility of causing unemployment and losing part of the industry must be addressed by this government in its meeting with the provinces.
At this time I would like to express my concern of this "notes" proposal that transferable property rights be introduced exclusively in the offshore fisheries, with the remainder of the industry being introduced to it at a later, as of yet undetermined, date.
We must realize that the theory and principle behind these management programs are opposite and contrasting. How will we explain to the struggling inshore fishermen why the government has given offshore trawlers exclusive ownership of a large quantity of unharvested fish while they must continue to struggle with the inequities of the present common property system? If fishing regulations are not uniform, conflict in the industry will intensify.
I realize that application and enforcement of transferable property rights will be much easier if it is restricted only to the
Fisheries
offshore fleets. Setting quotas and enforcing restrictions on catches will be, without a doubt, a huge task. If it is not done equally or if quotas are not closely adhered to, the system will break down. When a decision is made, it must be made in the context of all the fisheries. A fair and equitable system must be established to win the respect and co-operation of all involved.
I am sure that the minister is aware of problems created when the government fails to stick to its own set of rules. I rose in the House on October 14 to bring to the minister's attention the anger and frustration of P.E.I. scallop fishermen in the Northumberland Straits.
Actions such as this have caused much frustration and distrust of this government and have encouraged the belief that we have no management plan for our fisheries. The most enlightened aspect of the transferable property rights proposal is that the fishermen would gain more control over their fishing operation because they would not be subject to the unexplained whims of the minister.
In closing, I would like to encourage the minister and his officials to listen hard to the concerns and requests of the provincial ministers of fisheries when they meet in Ottawa on Monday. They are in closer contact with the fishermen and understand well the problems the east coast fishermen are now experiencing. The transferable property rights system has merit, but major problems still exist within it. They must be addressed and solved before the full merit of the new system can be judged by the House.
I want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the principle as outlined in the proposal would stabilize the fishing industry, eliminate the boom and bust cycle or the glut of fish being caught in the short season, the plants operating over 100 per cent capacity into long hours of the night, and then all of a sudden the quota being caught and the plants closing down for the season. The principle behind this policy is largely to eliminate that. It is something I endorse on principle. However, as I said earlier, there are many things in the proposal that are of great concern to me and I hope that they will be brought to the attention of the minister. I hope the minister will pay attention to some of the concerns that will be explained or voiced to him on Monday by the ministers and deputy ministers of fisheries from eastern Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, to say that the fisheries industry in Newfoundland is in dire straits would be a gross understatement.
The year of 1981 has been a disastrous year in fisheries, not just for fish plant owners but for thousands of fishermen and fish plant workers. In my few remarks today, Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House my own opinion about this situation, mostly as it relates to the inshore fishermen, particularly in my area. The major problem for the people on the northeast coast of Newfoundland this year was the lack of fish.

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
It was incredible, as I went around my constituency this summer, to see ten to twenty communities where absolutely no fish was caught, and then two or three other communities where the fishing could be described as being from good to excellent.
The scientists claim that it was because of the temperature of the water. While accepting that rationale, there are other factors that should be noted, factors that go beyond the short run and factors that go unnoticed because of lack of attention, generally speaking, to the long run.
I have always maintained that if fishermen on the northeast coast of Newfoundland could sell all the fish they catch, and if that fish were going into final production in Newfoundland, even at times when we have a poor inshore fisheries, the return to fishermen, fish plant workers and fish companies would not be classified as the disaster that it was this year.
The time is long overdue for provincial and federal governments to be working with the industry for the long run. It is not good enough that at times of economic distress in fisheries, governments turn on governments, searching for excuses to lay blame and, in some cases, to make up for their own shortcomings. There has been no plan or united approach to the fishermen.
Provincial governments control the issuing of licences to processors and buyers. The federal government controls everything from the low water mark out into the ocean, and never the twain shall meet. The big losers in this game that is being played about who is to blame in this disjointed approach are the fishermen, the fish plant workers, the fish plant owners, the Newfoundland people, the Canadian people and the people in other countries who want to purchase that product.
Let me be more specific. I shall first talk about the fishermen. In the federal riding of Gander-Twillingate there are 10,000 fishermen. Most of them have small boats, and a minority of them own what we call long liners.
In 1981, the vast majority of these fishermen had an absolutely disastrous year. Can one imagine a fisherman getting up at 3 a.m. steaming out to the fishing grounds, hauling his nets and returning home at 8 p.m. and not having made enough money to pay for the fuel that he burned in his boat for that day! That happened to thousands and thousands of fishermen day after day and week after week. The year of 1981 for most fishermen was the year when they had to go out in stormy weather late in October and into November just to try to get that extra stamp for unemployment insurance so that it would help them over the winter, or to provide them with enough income so they could at least keep body and soul together until the unemployment insurance cheque arrived. They made practically nothing this year.
Yes, there were fishermen who had a good voyage on the northeast coast this year; but for every one of these fishermen, I could show you 20 who did not have a good voyage. These experienced men and women-and that is the majority-who have thousands of dollars of debts on their equipment and on their boats hanging over their heads and who have bill collectors hammering on their doors, continue to experience extreme hardship.
While this natural disaster, this scarcity of fish continued, the provincial government's loan board deducted fishermen's loan payments as the fish came into the plants. As a result of its audits, the federal government deducted money as the fish came over the wharf. UIC nailed them with overpayments. The men went home with as little as S40 a week in their pockets in the months of July and August, the very months that they were supposed to be making most of their money.
To listen to hundreds of people recite that same story was incredible to me. I shall never forget it. In trying to help the primary producers, I spent a great deal of time this summer appealing to UIC, making formal appeals to them, and to the Department of National Revenue, and appearing before umpires on their behalf, writing reams of correspondence on each case. Eventually, out of total frustration I publicly denounced the provincial and federal government departments concerned. At a time when there were no fish, the system dealt these fishermen blow after blow. In fact, Mr. Speaker, at this very minute on Fogo Island in my district there are 484 cases of overpayments according to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. The man receives a letter from the Unemployment Insurance Commission which says, "You owe us $8,000 from our audit for the last four years. If you have already sent your payment, then disregard this notice. If you have not, you have to do it immediately or we will pursue some form of collection".
While delving into this matter I was informed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, from which I received no co-operation, that if I delved into the matter much more, because there was an RCMP investigation by the fraud squad, I could be charged with interfering with the judicial process.
There are only a thousand households on the island. Last week I sent out householders containing a questionnaire and statements to sign. If the system calls that interference with justice, then it should charge me right away.
When I said that there were no fish, I meant there was no cod fish. When we on the northeast coast of Newfoundland talk about fish, we talk about codfish. Generally speaking, it was a poor year as well for squid and other species. This leads me to the subject of fish and fish plants in the area which I know best, where 10,000 fishermen have experienced a poor year on the northeast coast.
I have heard the arguments today on both sides of the House. The argument used by the federal government and by the fishermen's union in Newfoundland is that there are too many fish plants. This argument is used in condemning the provincial government for issuing more processors' licenses these past five years than at any point in our history. It has caused some problems with the larger plants now experiencing trouble on the south coast of Newfoundland. It may have its merits. Even if the provincial government now admits or
December 4, 1981

claims that it is part of the problem, there is another side to the story.
The biggest issue in the fishery industry on the northeast coast of Newfoundland has always been that fishermen cannot sell every fish they catch. There are not enough plants to buy all the fish fishermen catch. When a community is told that it will obtain a fish plant and that the plant will sell underutilized species, species which it has not been able to sell in the past, the announcement is greeted with cheers. It is welcome news to see employment come into a community where there are only a few jobs in a local store, perhaps one in the post office, perhaps two men working with the department of highways in the winter, where families are on welfare and there are no employment opportunities. I defy any politician to deny these people employment opportunities. Also I defy any provincial or federal politician to deny that it will improve the quality of fish because they do notvhave to be trucked 200 miles to the closest plant.
If there were more dialogue between the provincial government and the federal government, I am convinced a happy medium could be found. Then and only then could both governments discuss the real problems in the fishery which are prevalent in good and bad years. I believe these problems are at the core of the whole affair. Solving these problems would go a long way to relieving a situation such as the one this year. For example, in good and bad years we dump tens of millions of dollars worth of fish. In some countries it would be considered a continuing national scandal and disgrace until it was corrected. With the starving millions of the world, how can we justify the use of only female capelin in our fish plants while the male capelin are dumped into the water? Approximately 60 per cent of the capelin caught are dumped because they do not contain spawn. How can anyone justify, every year there is a good fishery, the dumping of 30,000 pounds of herring from one small boat if the plant is overloaded or there is an August glut? This is the case boat after boat. How can anyone justify the dumping of fresh squid because of a boat quota by the fish plants or the over-the-side sales to foreign boats? No one can justify the figure of $20 million to $30 million of dumping off the Newfoundland coast in good years, just as no one can justify the dollar value of fish dumped this year, a bad year in the fishery. A fisherman can go out at three o'clock in the morning, spend all day on his boat but not make enough money to pay for boat fuel. He passes over miles of mackerel; he can see them on his sonar. He cannot catch them because he cannot sell them. That is the reality on the northeast coast of Newfoundland; this is happening.
The real problem must be addressed, but I do not honestly believe it will ever be addressed because the experts who are supposed to know, say that it is impossible to correct, that it cannot be solved. I am referring to the problem of what happens to the vast majority of fish after they are landed. The man on the street presents the argument; the man on the northeast coast of Newfoundland asks simple questions which I have heard hundreds of times in conversations in kitchens late at night over cups of tea. The questions are: Why do we
Fisheries
export most of our fish in a relatively raw state? Why do we export so much fish in cod blocks, in barrels or in frozen blocks? The answer given by everyone who is supposedly an expert is always "tariff barriers". The issuing of a processor's license on the northeast coast of Newfoundland in 90 per cent of the cases is the issuing of a license to semiprocess or not to process at all.
I am not suggesting that this problem could be overcome within one or two years or even three or four years, but surely that is the direction which should be followed eventually to final production. Are we to accept the simplistic argument of tariffs for all time? Are we doomed forever by shortsighted government policy which indicates in effect that fish will be exported from a fish plant in Canada to a fish plant in Massachusetts? Fish are being shipped from a fish plant in Newfoundland to a fish plant in another country to be processed, to be sold, to be marketed in that country and then possibly even sold back to us. We export our jobs, we export our profits, we export our economic advantage. If there is one thing that we have in Newfoundland, it is fish. We did not have much this year, but we still have fish. Yet, because there is no long-term planning for the industry, no economic planning, no provincial planning and no consistent rapport between the two levels of government, we are losing the one great advantage we have over other countries.
The provincial government controls everything from the low water mark on land and the federal government controls everything from the low water mark out into the ocean. Because never the twain shall meet for long-term planning, we will continue to export our fish from Newfoundland fish plants to fish plants in other countries, we will continue to dump fish, we will continue to persecute fishermen and we will continue to play games, all for the short term. The time is coming when fishermen, fish plant workers and fish plant owners will come to the conclusion that the solution of problems in the fishery is much too important a question to be left in the hands of politicians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I can really accept the closing remarks of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). Politicians have become so involved in this matter that I do not know how the problems of the industry can be unravelled or how it can be put back in the hands of private enterprise and responsible individuals who did not do so badly prior to the interference of the politicians. Perhaps we should get the politicians out of this and let the industry operate on its own, as it did for many years.
I do agree with what the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate said however, with respect to the activities of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), with whom the hon. member should be very well acquainted. I would suggest to the hon. member that he should arrange a special meeting between the minister and the Standing Committee on Fisheries and

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
Forestry. Hon. members could then explain to the minister in person the problems with the harsh, unreasonable assessments that are being made retroactively for three, four, five or even six years. I am respectful of the community I shall name, Mr. Speaker, but these assessments are made by somebody born, say, in the community of Estevan, trained in accounting and transferred to St. John's, Newfoundland, where he or she is ordered to reassess the income tax returns of the fishermen. A person like this knows no more about the realities of the fishermen's business than a goose knows about Providence, and this ignorance is illustrated in the reassessments. This procedure is cruel and unreasonable. There is no understanding of the difficulties and the costs that fisherman incurs when trying to make a living.
I urge the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate to invite the Minister of National Revenue to meet with the fisheries committee so that the inequities, the cruel, unreasonable and illogical inequities of retroactive income tax assessment, can be revealed to him. Not all those reassessed are innocent, of course. Some have been careless about filing their returns, but for every one of those there are probably two dozen innocent people mortgaging their homes and their boats and going without necessities in order to pay taxes on assessments made by people who do not know what they are doing.
I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and I offer my sincere support to him in any action he wishes to take against such unreasonable behaviour by an otherwise responsible minister.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has problems and, to a large degree, these emanate from the fact that for the last ten or 15 years successive ministers have decided they could run the industry better than it had been run hitherto. The minister who initiated such behaviour may have had some grounds for it, but things have not improved.
I think we should examine the licensing structure, Mr. Speaker. The licensing regulations change without notice. For instance, there is the case of a man who has a licence to fish in the Bay of Fundy and the Atlantic for scallops. When he goes to renew his licence, he finds that now he is constrained to a seven-mile limit. Unfortunately, however, he does not look at the licence when he picks it up and misses the fact that he is no longer allowed to fish in the broad area he used to. When he goes to inquire, after he has been apprehended outside the seven-mile zone assigned to him, he is told that he is no longer eligible for the licence for that area. So he has been deprived of his fishing area without notice-and without noticing. Now it is too late for him to re-establish himself.
What happens in such a case, Mr. Speaker? I will give you the example of a young man in my constituency who bought a boat with which he expected to do some scalloping. He had a letter from the minister which indicated that he was eligible at one time for a licence. He bought a boat worth $100,000, mortgaged his home, but now he finds that he does not have the kind of scallop licence that he thought he had and there is no way he can get enough scallops within the seven-mile zone. Now he finds he cannot get the licence for which he thought
his boat was eligible when he bought it. I suppose that officials in the department will say that he should have known that. I submit, however, that a fisherman has no way of knowing from one day to the next what his licence will be. The information is not posted or circulated to licensed fishermen in advance. The change is imposed at the will and pleasure of some regulatory individual in the department.
The young man to whom I refer happens to be a very strong supporter of the minister's party, but I plead publicly on his behalf-give him the licence that he must have to save his home, to save his boat, to save his honour! I will plead for others who support me or who support the people on our left, because it is my job in this House as a representative of a fishing community to seek fair play. I do not care what a person's political stripe is; if my services are needed, they are available. I say publicly that this man, along with many others, should get his licence.
I should like to put on record another example of a licensing problem, Mr. Speaker. A person in my constituency bought a boat which already had a licence. When he went to transfer a licence from a boat that is now unsafe to the new one, he was told he could not do that. He could not transfer a licence which he had owned to a boat which he now owned. He was told he would have to get another boat if he wanted to use the licence from the unsafe boat. I have known this man for only ten years. He and his family have worked like dogs. Whenever there were fish and scallops to be had, he was out there, no matter how long it took. He has equipped two sons, and a third one is working for him. To date he has surrendered a total of eight licences because he wanted new boats. He needed the diversity of fishing capability which he had in those licences, but they have been taken from him. In my view, this is partly because Halifax has the control of fish and fishing licences for New Brunswick. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the officials in Halifax could not care less what happens in the Bay of Fundy or in the province of New Brunswick.
I am sure that the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) would join me in appealing to the minister on behalf of communities which have no opportunity to make a living other than through the fishing industry. For generations that has been their sole source of support. When the licensing and quota regulations fall on an isolated community with such severity that it can no longer make a living, then I submit that the minister has to look into the situation. The islands of Campobello, Grand Manan and Deer Island are isolated fishing communities. There is no other way that people can make a living in those communities. When quotas and licences and disadvantages are imposed upon those people by regulation to the point that they cannot make a living, then I ask the minister, in the name of mercy and consideration, to look into matters. Licences should not be taken away. The value of licences should not be reduced by regulation without notice, or the communities will be destroyed. We are all very concerned about the amount of fish left in the ocean. Mr. Speaker, people have been fishing in those areas for nearly three centuries and there are still fish

there. I agree that we must have quotas and that there has to be an element of regulation, but if the people have been able to look after themselves for that period of time, that indicates to me that they should have a little recognition and help, and not be totally neglected. Fairness and justice is the least they can expect.
Yesterday, I believe the deputy minister discussed aquaculture, a subject which has been close to my heart for over 20 years. My interest started when I first saw the work which could be done and the wealth created from fish culture, or aquaculture. It is a subject which our government has not chosen to support except, perhaps, for a little research. However, it has had some knowledge of the subject. For instance, concerning salmon aquaculture, I believe that a man was seconded from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. His name is MacDonald, and he worked with a subsidiary of Devco in the rearing of salmon on a farming type of basis. He made very important progress. In my last conversation with that man, he said that if he could get someone to help him a little Financially, he was quite prepared to risk all his savings in the establishment of a fish aquaculture program to rear salmon. That information has not been available to other people.
Therefore, in the province of New Brunswick, there was eventually evidence that, in fact, salmon could be reared in a farming type of set-up. I commend the government for eventually extending a grant to a company to do some experimentation in fish rearing after it was proven that it could be done. This proved to be successful and it illustrated the fact that, beyond question, it was profitable if properly conducted. The man to whom I referred was joined by three other people whom I know. They were all assured by departmental officials that this program would receive support for five years from the department. After that time, they would be on their own. Almost all the support these people needed was in the supply of fish from the fisheries department and its fish hatchery structures. This year they were advised that they will not get an adequate supply of fish next year. Therefore, that support has been withdrawn.
As I have mentioned in the fisheries committee, at least two people have made a final commitment to donate $500,000 each. If they have a season in which they do not have fish to sell, their very existence will be threatened. Their bank credits will probably be withdrawn, but other payments to financiers, particularly governments, will continue.
There has been a breach of faith, and I appeal to the minister. These people probably need 120,000 fish in total. Let us provide them with the fish which are being reared in Atlantic Canada. Their demand is not such that it will seriously affect the amount of fish which would ordinarily be put out for the sports or for professional fishermen.
I compliment the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) for very strongly advocating more research. This is a case where it is proven that research can be done. However,
Fisheries
now we find that, on the one hand, we have some people within the public service structure who do not wish to extend research for public use, and, on the other hand, people who would like to see research extended and put to practical use. The whipsawing that is going on within the department is apparently what is depriving these people of the fish they need.
I say to the minister through Your Honour that it is time that he took this in hand and that the word of responsible officials was kept so that these people will be serviced as they were promised. I ask Your Honour whether you, as a responsible man, would commit yourself to $500,000 of ultimate expenditure on a whim or a chance. Your Honour would not, but these men did. Now the supplies are not there. I appeal to the minister to supply them with the fish which had been assured to them by the promise of support.
Today we have been discussing the quality of fish at length, and I would like to speak a little further concerning the matter. Licensing bears some influence on the matter. A couple of herring seiners decided that they could land better fish if they owned a third boat between them. They spent something approaching $400,000, and surely over $300,000, to buy a boat and equip it with refrigeration equipment so that if they were fishing a distance from shore they could put the fish in the new carrier and properly convey it home, refrigerated and in top quality. What happened then? They obtained a licence for the boat into which they had invested so much money, a licence to use the boat near home. From that distance, they could have brought the fish to the processors in a scow in good quality. However, when they wanted a licence to fish in distant herring regions, they could not get one. As far as I know, they never did.
Are we talking about quality? I say to Your Honour that officials of the fisheries department who denied that licence were talking out of both sides of their mouths. That refrigerated boat was badly needed in the fishing industry. However, it is useless and it is virtually restricted to shore use.
Again, by virtue of licensing regulations and restrictions, the size of the boat is restricted. There is no way that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will grant a man the right to build a boat which is a little bigger so that it will have the same capacity after refrigeration equipment is installed. How, in the name of all that is reasonable, can one get quality if a man is not allowed to build a boat which is a little bigger to refrigerate the fish he catches offshore? Let us become reasonable and rational in this licensing and regulatory structure.
I think the point blank statement which has been made in respect of the processing industry requires some questioning because, to a very large degree, fishing is a seasonal operation. There are times when fishermen will catch a lot of fish. I think it was the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate who again pointed out that we are wasting fish because the processing capability is not there. Processors establish boat quotas and fish are dumped overboard, either at the port or offshore before they get to port, because the quota of the processor in Gander-Twillingate has been exceeded. This is not unusual in the herring industry or in other industries where the catching

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
capability exceeds the processing capability. Because that industry is seasonal, the processing industry must be larger than that which can be kept occupied for 12 months of the year. It must be able to accept the peaks and valleys of delivery. Fishing in the ocean is perhaps not as uncertain as fishing in a stream. However, it is not certain enough that we can say to the processing industry that it has too much fish, while fishermen are saying to hon. members of the House that they cannot sell their fish because there is not sufficient processing capability. We cannot have it both coming and going. We must accept some realities.
It was my privilege to spend a week viewing some of the aspects of fisheries on the west coast. It was also my privilege to have been born in Carleton County, New Brunswick, and to have lived beside a fish hatchery for many years of my life. The fish hatchery was built in 1927. I was in and out of it, very regularly, for the next 20 years. I guess I could not have managed it, but pretty nearly. I learned a lot: from grinding liver to feeding fish, and picking fish to stripping fish. I want to ask the minister and the government, through Your Honour, how the government of Canada could support five fish hatcheries and one holding facility in the province of New Brunswick from 1927 until about ten years ago, but now it cannot. Can the minister tell me how, in the thirties, we could strip, set and hatch 20 million eggs in those five hatcheries, and today, we can only put 250,000 eggs in a hatchery which formerly hatched up to five million eggs a year? While this is happening on the Atlantic coast, we are spending $150 million in a five-year program in British Columbia. I do not begrudge British Columbia one cent as I know it needs the funds. However, I say to Your Honour that a minister who would be party to the expenditure of that sum of money in British Columbia, opening up plans for a second phase of the same program in British Columbia, has a duty and a responsibility to operate those five hatcheries in New Brunswick which we could operate in the thirties. We could operate those hatcheries in the 1930s when we did not have enough to pay six months' interest on today's budget. The budget of Canada at that time might not have been much bigger than the minister's own budget. Relatively speaking it was small. We cannot operate those hatcheries there now. We had the facilities. We had the staff. We had the expertise. But it has gone. That is why we cannot supply fish to these people.
I see the minister shaking his head. I tell him not to shake his head. His officials knew full well what these men were doing because they were in contact with the aquaculture people. If I am not mistaken two years ago-and I might be out a year-his department did not set the eggs it had, and offered to sell them. One year ago the department did not have enough eggs and refused to buy any. That is my understanding. Salmon eggs were offered to the minister's department. These eggs were not bought. They were sold. There are not enough eggs set now to give the support promised to the aquaculture people. We do not have a salmon enhancement
program nor do we have any surveillance of the salmon that are now in the sea. We need both of those.
The importance of salmon to the tourist industry is extremely significant to Atlantic Canada. The importance of salmon commercially and the importance of salmon for the tourist industry is extremely significant to British Columbia. Let us get some balance here. Over-the-side sales are something which may on occasion be necessary. I will not condemn them completely. But when that fish product comes from behind the Iron Curtain into markets into which our fishermen and our processors sell the rest of the catch at lower prices, our processors cannot pay a better price than they do. That is why they cannot be competitive with sales of mackerel and other fish because they are dumped into our potential markets after we have subsidized the foreign fleet by issuing an additional quota. Certainly they can pay more for the fish. But there has to be an adjustment of over-the-side sales, if any, to recognize the competition in the same markets with our fishermen and with our own processors into which the over-the-side sale is eventually marketed.


Mr. Remi Bujold (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to take part in the debate on this opposition motion on a very important matter. It goes without saying that this motion condemning the failure of the government to forecast or avert the current problems in the fishing industry concerns me deeply, as it does our government, because I could go as far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that I represent one of the great fishing constituencies in Quebec. And when I read this opposition motion condemning the failure of the government to forecast or avert the crisis facing the major fishing companies in Canada, I must say that I can't help smiling because of the naivety of the members opposite and their strange conception of the facts.
I was listening this morning to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) when he attempted to show to the Canadian people and the two opposition parties in his reply that since his appointment as minister, he is one of those in the Canadian government who has shown most concern for the fishermen, their families and the economy of their region since confederation. He pointed out that, on his appointment to this department in 1974, he looked fully into all these problems, that he had to stand up to the major companies to protect our small fishermen, that our friends opposite have strongly protested against the measures proposed by the minister to protect one particular category of fishermen in Canada, and that he is now being blamed for not having forecast that crisis. However, I believe. Mr. Speaker, that he had indeed forecast it and that he was determined to do something to avert it, but that our friends opposite would not have allowed him to do so. During those years, if the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans had been allowed to try to get involved in the processing industry on an
December 4, 1981

equal footing with our major companies, we would probably not be facing such problems.
During the short time when they were in power, the same people who are now accusing us of doing nothing managed to grant these major companies certain privileges and rights that the minister had withdrawn under the previous government, so that these major companies once again had the advantage over inshore fishermen of the Gaspe peninsula, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia. And they are now blaming the government for its failure to prevent the current difficulties. If the opposition had really wanted to protect the interests of ordinary people, of fishermen, if it had co-operated, the minister would probably have succeeded, as he has done in all the areas where he has taken action, to better avert the crisis and to adjust government policies to meet the problems experienced in certain regions.
On reading, further on in the motion, that the government is being asked to give the fishing industry the same active support it gave some multinationals in this country, I feel our hon. friends have completely overlooked what the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Employment and Immigration did jointly with their community development projects in Newfoundland. I shall come back to that later. But I mention it in passing just to point out to you that this motion, which is meant to prove that the government has done nothing, is absolutely harebrained and unfounded in fact.
Mr. Speaker, of course the big companies that hire thousands and thousands of workers are extremely important. Even I have some of their plants in the riding I represent here in this House, especially in the Magdalen Islands; their plants process the fish there. In that particular region, we have not felt the impact the other provinces have, perhaps because we have better administrators locally or because someone having foreseen a drop in prices and demand, this season's operations were planned accordingly. Looking at another aspect of the problem, we have to recognize that some multinationals are very important and beneficial for our economy; still, we must also keep in mind the countless small inshore fishermen on whom both small and medium-sized businesses depend for their fish. Naturally, when a big multinational has problems and shuts down, the whole economy goes down with it. However, if in another area where there are several small businesses in operation you have a couple of them doing bad, you could still have two or three others which would be going fine because they supply markets located in other areas or other countries.
These small businesses which very often are operated on a family basis or by a co-operative or a syndicate of businessmen living in the same area, are very much aware of the needs and interests of the whole community. And that is why it is tremendously important, Mr. Speaker, that we pay attention to these small companies which we are trying to set up in business in Quebec, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island
Fisheries
and the other Atlantic provinces, because they deal, as I mentioned a while ago, with limited numbers of fishermen in their effort to provide their respective small communities with the amenities of life which are sought by all concerned.
And that is why since 1974 the Minister of Fisheries in the Canadian government-except during that short nine-month period which fortunately did not last any longer, because during that short period, as I said earlier, it was the small fishermen who had to bear the brunt of some of the policies of the then government-this Minister of Fisheries has been able to implement extremely worthwhile and conclusive policies so that small Canadian fishermen have rediscovered the challenge and the incentive of returning to their occupation and now realize that their trade or their work was the same as all others in Canada rather than a third rate trade as it had been in the past unfortunately. It was our government and our Minister of Fisheries who managed over the last seven years to inspire confidence in Canada's fishing industry and in small fishermen so that at last they were able to look upon that very important vocation as a source of rewarding work to support their families and supply food to their fellow citizens.
But how is it that our government was able to give those people an opportunity for progress on a labour market similar to all others? Many programs have been established in Canada. There was the fishing boat construction program, among others, a very important program created by this department under which fishermen could apply for direct grants to build their own boats. The same goes for the construction of wharves. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer specifically to a very important program which has proved to be beneficial to all the residents of the Gaspe Peninsula, northwestern Quebec and the north shore of Quebec over the past year; it was set up in co-operation with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which generously offered enough funds to improve the fishing facilities in our areas again to enable fishermen to indulge in a more congenial occupation and carry on their fishing activities safely.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion transferred $10 million to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to complete those harbour facilities. I recall that about a year ago I urged the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) to secure such funds because, under the standard criteria of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and considering the volume of catches in our regions, we could not set aside enough money to complete those facilities when we were adversely affected by bad weather and physical considerations which were preventing us, with the money we did have, from building facilities large enough to allow protection from the existing hazards. In my constituency of Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine alone, Mr. Speaker, we are going to spend $2 million this year only to build wharves. In Bonaventure, on the

December 4, 1981
Fisheries
mainland, we are going to build two wharves for a total of $500,000 coming from DREE's first envelope of $10 million, and in the Magdalen Islands, we will be in a position to allocate, for the building of wharves, $1.5 million transferred from another DREE program jointly with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and I will revert to this matter later if time permits.
Another important program, Mr. Speaker, that has enabled those fishermen to achieve profitability is the one promoting quality. My colleague from Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) said earlier that last week a most important symposium on quality was held in Matane. Again, this government has made tremendous efforts to try and improve the quality of our fish. It goes without saying that with depleting stocks, fishermen must be made aware that the higher the quality, the higher the prices and the lesser the need to catch more fish. Under this program, we experimented with new plastic bins and we also tried to improve the cooling capacity of the fishing boats, these measures have vastly improved the quality of the fish.
Unfortunately, for this program the federal government did not receive from one sector all the co-operation it could have. I am talking of course of the Quebec government which, unfortunately does not seem to pay all the attention it should to the fishermen of the province. As has become increasingly obvious in the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker, the government in power in Quebec seems to be acting over the heads of people and putting political ideology above the interests of the people it was elected to govern. At a time when the government of Canada takes extraordinary measures to try and improve the quality of our fish and of the fishing facilities, that government increases unashamedly the price for bait, for ice, which fall
under provincial responsibility, and also for fishing gear. So we hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Quebec will put ideologies aside and will, this time, work in the interests of the people.
Before closing off, Mr. Speaker, as I see my time is running out, I would simply like to say that the program I was just talking about, and which is applied in Newfoundland in the area of community development projects, allows fishermen who are out of work, for the reasons we already know, to work the required number of weeks to be eligible for unemployment insurance. In the riding of Bonaventure itself, we will set up this year an important $275,000 program and we will also use substantial funds from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in order to provide the materials required and create jobs for these fishermen and especially to improve port facilities which otherwise could not be improved. Contrary to what this opposition motion suggests, I believe this government and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans are intent on protecting Canadian fishermen and providing them with the means necessary, as I indicated before, for a decent life and an adequate salary, like all their fellow Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have now expired.
Therefore, on the proviso that all hon. members present and the one hon. minister present have a very good weekend, this House now stands adjourned until Monday at two o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). Good evening.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 7, 1981