1983-11-18

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, two years ago a Carleton University Ph.D. student, Tariq Ahsan, was arrested and jailed in Pakistan for political reasons, on a trumped-up charge of possessing seditious material. After 17 months of imprisonment, Mr. Ahsan finally came to trial in April of this year. He was sentenced just last week to two years' hard labour, a sentence to begin at the trial, not even at the beginning of his imprisonment. Mr. Ahsan's physical condition was poor when he left Canada two years ago, and according to his family has worsened considerably while in prison. A sentence of two years' hard labour may be a death sentence for Mr. Ahsan.
Mr. Ahsan's teaching assistantship position is being held open for him at Carleton University, as well as additional scholarship funds. His colleagues in the political science department are anxious for his safe return to Canada.
This imprisonment constitutes a serious infringement on the most fundamental of civil liberties, and Members of all Parties and all levels of Government have already made their views known to the Government of Pakistan. Were Mr. Ahsan a Canadian citizen we could do more for him. What we can do, and what 1 urge all Members of this House to do, is to write to the Government of Pakistan and the Ambassador for Pakistan, appealing for Mr. Ahsan's release so he may return to Canada and continue his studies.


THE DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped I was shocked to learn recently that the Oakville-based radio reading service, which provided reading service for an estimated 3,000 blind and visually impaired persons, was forced off the air
because of the provincial Government's refusal to provide any further funding for the service.
The station, which used voluntary readers to broadcast verbatim in-depth accounts from newspapers and other readings, was itself a newspaper to the blind. Its broadcast area extended through the Golden Horseshoe, Scarborough, Guelph, and Kitchener, and as far away as Simcoe. Last year the station had its operation cut back from seven days to five days in an effort to extend its limited budget. However, this did little to ameliorate the problem of inadequate funding.
It is important that the federal Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) responsible for the status of the disabled meet his provincial counterpart to inquire into this matter and recommend that careful consideration be given to reinstating the radio reading service so that the visually handicapped persons who were able to take advantage of it can continue to function in a more complete way.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, the CBC, in its program "The Journal", reported in a most irresponsible and inflammatory manner on a subject which deserves to be treated with sensitivity and understanding. People in the Okanagan-Similkameen area of British Columbia are incensed by the airing of unworthy statements which allege that they have a bad racist attitude, intolerance is institutionalized, that they practise harassment of minority groups such as Doukhobors, Chinese, Japanese, and now Quebecois, and that there is a hard core of really bigoted people in the area. I say shame to the CBC for a distorted sensationalization of a lamentable situation where tensions have arisen in certain communities between farm workers from Quebec and a minor provocative element, some of whom are also transient to the area.
[DOT] (mo)
The CBC highlighted untruths, and generalizations such as "Orchard workers are classed as no good", and "People think that transient workers are simply a bunch of dirty hippies", the inference that the rape of two girls from Quebec was racially motivated, and the implication that people who resent the action of one who urinated openly on a Main Street store front are displaying racial intolerance. The CBC's mandate is to be a national instrument dedicated to unity and reconciliation.

November 18, 1983
The CBC contributes nothing by engaging in such objectionable programming.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, both the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) and the Minister of Indian Affairs (Mr. Munro) are now saying that they cannot provide funds to cover the legal costs of Donald Marshall. Ministers of the Crown stand helpless in the face of a gross injustice done to a fellow Canadian.
Mr. Marshall spent 11 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Whether or not this comes under provincial or federal jurisdiction becomes irrelevant in light of his unjust suffering. Mr. Marshall's punishment for a crime he did not commit is a stain on Canada's entire justice system. It is something about which all Canadians should feel ashamed.
Considering other cases, such as that of Susan Nelles, the subject of general compensation for victims of faulty court proceedings would make a good subject for this House to consider.
Mr. Marshall faces more than $80,000 in legal expenses. The Government does not need to be helpless. It can bring in a Bill to pay these costs. My Party promises to deal with any such Bill expeditiously. I am sure the Conservatives would also want to pass such a Bill with a minimum of debate. I urge the Government to take action and not to stand by helplessly in the face of injustice.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jack Burghardt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of countless requests which have been made to this House by the Official Opposition, I would ask for the tabling of a remarkable leaked document. The document is referred to in detail in a fascinating book called "The Contenders". The book is a modern day version of Julius Ceasar, recounting how the Member for Central Nova (Mr. Mulroney), in the role of Brutus, betrayed his leader on the way to the forum in Ottawa. The book reprints a confidential memo allegedly written to the Leader of the Opposition by one of his then key campaign officials, John Thompson. The memo tells the Tory Leader just how he is perceived by the delegates and members of the public generally. This is what the memo says, and these are direct quotes:
Your image is fuzzy and people are scared of your candidacy because... they are scared off by your organization and they don't trust you ... people perceive you to be both left and right-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has some question about the validity of this.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker,
I am glad to see both the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) in the House. During his trial before the Old Bailey in the United Kingdom, a former CIDA official, Mr. Hugh Hambleton, a Canadian being tried on espionage charges for passing information to the KGB, admitted to having seen in Canada in April, 1980, official confirmation from the Department of Justice to the effect that he would not be prosecuted in Canada if he were to "co-operate" with Canadian security authorities in determining the exact nature of his contacts with the KGB. The existence of any such offer has since been denied by the Solicitor General.
It is time some clarification of this matter was provided to the Canadian public. Why did the Canadian security authorities make such an offer? Why was Hambleton allowed to travel freely to the United Kingdom where, obviously, he expected to defect? Why was he warned twice, once before leaving Canada and secondly upon arrival in the United Kingdom, that he would almost certainly be tried in Britain on charges of espionage under law identical to the Canadian Official Secrets Act? Who prevented the Canadian authorities from bringing charges?


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Crow rate is now history, and the railways have had their way with the Canadian taxpayers. Years and years of striking by the railways, in the transportation of grain, have paid off handsomely and now farmers and Canadians in general will be paying for the investment and upgrading that far-seeing and responsible railway management would have put in place a long time ago.
In the course of creating the political context for killing the Crow, the CNR deliberately created the impression that changes to the Crow rate would result in a great increase in jobs at the CNR shops in Transcona, thus trying to undermine the position 1 was taking as the local Member of Parliament, and displaying, one might argue, an unusual and perhaps inappropriate interest for a Crown corporation in an issue with such obvious political dimensions. Nevertheless, the expecta-
November 18, 1983

tion of more and new jobs as a result of the Crow change is there.
1 remain very skeptical, and 1 put the Minister of Transport on notice that employment levels at the CN shops in Tran-scona, and in Winnipeg in general, had better go up to and beyond their traditional levels, or he will never hear the end of it from me about the snow job CN did him and on other suckers like him in the Government.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, because it relates to the general responsibilities of the Government and not to a specific department or minister.
The effect of Bill S-31 would be to drastically restrict the freedom of organizations, such as the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec, to invest profitably in Canada. This morning, the Government said it intended to introduce new amendments to the Bill. Will these be substantial amendments, as requested by almost all intervenors, in Quebec and elsewhere? Will these amendments deal with the objections expressed to date and when will they be tabled?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, amendments to Bill S-31 were introduced in the Senate some ten days ago and are now being examined by the Senate Committee. We have indicated that we are considering further amendments and will table those in good time.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My question was addressed directly to the Acting Prime Minister because it deals with a national policy that, as we shall soon see, has been approved by the entire Government, and we shall see whether Bill S-31 also has the approval of the Quebec caucus. That we would like to know, and we soon will.
The Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec is a major instrument of economic development, not only for Quebec but for Canada as a whole. Its expansion is seriously threatened by this Bill, as was pointed out by many intervenors from all levels of our society, and these were people I would call moderates.
Oral Questions
Could the Acting Prime Minister today give millions of Quebecers, whose pension funds are administered by the Caisse, the assurance that this vital instrument will not be prevented from proceeding legitimately to invest the assets of our taxpayers in Canada?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, 1 am afraid that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is taking a very shortsighted approach to this situation. If he had considered it in terms of the national interest of this country and in terms of the interests of the people of Quebec, he would recognize that this is a very valid law and one that is generally supported by all of the Provinces. They see this as the kind of infrastructure that must be in place, parallel to the kind of law that exists in communications and in banking. I suggest to him that he take the long term approach and look at the national interest rather than the narrow definition which he is giving to the current situation.


INQUIRY RESPECTING EXPORTATION OF JOBS FROM QUEBEC AND ALL OF CANADA
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's answer contains some very serious errors, and I would invite her to think about that. 1 can guarantee those errors are there. When 1 hear someone in the Government asking us to act in the national interest, after everything they have done to divide this country, that takes a lot of nerve.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the Government is using a Bill to do to Quebec what it is afraid to do openly. That is what they are doing.
My question is: Considering the fact that one of the consequences of the Bill would be to oblige the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec to invest the assets of Quebec taxpayers elsewhere, in the United States, for instance, could the Government inform the House how many jobs, as a result of this policy, will be exported from Quebec and from Canada, considering the unacceptable limitations the Government wants to impose on the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, this is being taken totally out of context.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Judith A. Erola: No one is limiting the amount of investment Caisse de depots can make. They are limiting their own investment to 30 per cent, I would like to point out to the Hon. Leader of the Opposition. We are limiting only those voting rights. They can invest as much as they want in this country, and should be encouraged to do so.

November 18, 1983
Oral Questions


REASON FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION IN SENATE
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, if the Bill
has no effect upon the activities of Caisse de depot or other provincial emanations, why in the world is the Government bringing it in?
Let me ask this question. Why is the Government not finding the courage to bring this Bill directly to this House? Why is it sneaking it off to the Senate where it hopes the scrutiny will occur without full public debate and without the benefit of televised Question Period?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Will the Minister also tell us, now that she has announced her second round of amendments, why she will not give the Senate the whole Bill? Why do we have a sort of peep show approach to this Bill, where it is shown to the Senate piece by piece, and then changed amendment by amendment? Will the Minister withdraw this Bill until she knows exactly what she is preparing and then give this House, not the Senate but this House, the full Bill so that we can consider all of its implications at once?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I should like to assure the Hon. Member that the Bill will come to the House, that the Senate Committee has been giving it a very thorough investigation, hence the amendments, and the amendments that were brought forward the other day were warmly received by the Senate, with some further refinements which we are now considering. It is because of that full inspection, that very, very close inspection which the Senators have given it, that the amendments are coming forward. 1 can assure the Hon. Member that that Bill will come to this House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the assurance with which the Minister purports to tell us what the Senate will do. I can assure her that if that Bill comes to this House, it will stop in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LIMIT ON PROVINCIAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me put, either to the Minister or to the Acting Prime Minister, the following question. This Bill has as its principle to place a 10 per cent limit upon the activities of provincial emanations, of provincial agencies. Why, in the name of consistency, if the Government is going to limit government activities to 10 per cent positions, is the Government not applying that same standard to federal agencies? What is there in law that would stop the CDIC, for example, from taking control of CP? Why is the Government of Canada trying to follow a double standard which imposes upon agencies of provincial Governments limitations that it will not impose upon agencies of the federal Government?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, 1 am amazed that the answer is not totally obvious to the Members of the Opposition-


Mr. Andre:: Why are you always so amazed?


Judith A. Erola: -because it is assumed, in fact it is supported by the people of Canada, that federal Crown corporations would act in the best national interests of the people of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Dick:: Even your own colleagues do not believe that one.


Mr. Beatty:: You are going to regret that one.


FORESTRY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada told us yesterday that unemployment at its present level will likely stay with us for many, many months. 1 am directing my question to the Minister responsible for Canada's number one industry, the forest industry.
The economic development auction will be taking place among selected cabinet ministers next Tuesday. The Minister is well aware of the plight facing the forest industry in terms of high unemployment levels, necessary restructuring, as well as the abysmal state of reforestation. Will he tell the House, and indirectly the people of Canada, particularly those involved in the forest industry, what request he has before the economic development auction which will take place next Tuesday, and what additional funding we can expect to enable us to continue with provincial-federal agreements in reforestation programs?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a meeting of a Cabinet committee and he is asking me to put on the floor of the House matters that are still to be decided upon. May I indicate to him that of course I am very committed to the question of forest renewal and forest research. He knows that we have this year, in terms of forest research facilities, funded expansions to the tune of $22 million in the Maritimes, $10 million in the Laurentian research facilities, $30 million in the Great Lakes area, and $14 million in the Pacific research facilities.
In addition, under the pulp and paper research agreement sponsored by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Government is making some $17 million available, $15 million of which will be made available to the Province of British Columbia. In terms of fire-fighting, we have jointly agreed with the Provinces, under the Special Recovery Program, to the construction of some 29 fire-fighting bombers, 17
November 18, 1983

Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS
of which will be built with federal funds and 12 with provincial funds.
Since the inception-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Caccia:: -of the use of Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, we have made available in the forestry field for the creation of jobs some $140 million, $45 million of which will be available to the Province of British Columbia. I regretted very much to learn that the British Columbia Government withdrew from the subsequent implementation of this particular program for creating jobs in forestry.


Nelson Andrew Riis: If one listens carefully to what the Minister has to say, the amounts of money being set aside for reforestation in our country are pitiful. As a matter of fact, if we add up the figures for reforestation which he suggested, the Government of Canada gave more than that to the countries of Zaire and Rwanda in the last two years.


LEVEL OF AID TO FOREST INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has given $430 million to a variety of countries for their reforestation programs. We in this Party support in principle that type of foreign aid development. Will the Minister at least make the same commitment to the Provinces of Canada and to our forest industry, that he will see a reciprocal amount of money spent in Canada? With $430 million for reforestation in other countries, can we not expect the same for our own country?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed with the narrowmindedness of this type of question emanating from a Member of the New Democratic Party which claims to be in the forefront of foreign aid, in particular aid to developing countries in need. I remind the Hon. Member that when Canada becomes involved in aiding Zaire and Rwanda, it is because the climate of the world benefits by reforestation enterprises which are entertained in the Sahel region and in regions where desertification is taking place.
As to the "pitiful amount", and I am quoting the Hon. Member, I ask him whether he considers $80 million in reforestation, which is the amount that has been steadily made available to the Provinces throughout the years, is a pitiful amount of money in addition to the $140 million under unemployment insurance for the creation of forestry jobs of which, as I reminded him earlier, $45 million went to the Province of British Columbia, a Province which has withdrawn from the project itself.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. PAUL MARTIN AND MRS. MARTIN
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to call the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of a distinguished former Member of the House, the Hon. Paul Martin and Mrs. Martin.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Joliette.

[ Translation]


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-


Nelson Andrew Riis: A supplementary-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair has recognized the Hon. Member for Joliette. The Chair will take care of these matters in the course of events.


Roch La Salle: I realize from the answers the Minister gave earlier that she was not very knowledgeable about the consequences of Bill S-31, the Bill being sponsored by the Minister, for Quebec interests and national interests as well and the fact that millions of Quebecers are very concerned about this legislation. The Minister must be aware of the fierce opposition of people who believe in federalism with respect and who are opposed to this legislation.
Therefore, could the Minister who wants to defend this legislation on the basis that it is in the national interest, inform the House whether expansion of a Francophone group through investments inside our country is against the national interest she was trying to defend this morning?


Mr. Prud'homme:: The Bill is going to die in the Senate. [English]
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Of course not. The question is totally irrelevant. French Canadians, as any Canadians, have a right to invest in this country. 1 think 1 understand this Bill a great deal better than the Hon. Member for Joliette understands it, because it is in the national interest. I want to reinforce once again that there is no limitation to the amount that anyone can invest. There is a limitation only in the area of voting rights. It is

November 18, 1983
Oral Questions
legislation parallel to the kind of legislation that currently exists in banking and in communications. It is not unique legislation. It is legislation that is of the very fabric and structure vital to our country.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY WHETHER LIBERAL MEMBERS OPPOSE LEGISLATION
Roch La Salle: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's hypocrisy with respect to this legislation is too obvious. The Minister knows perfectly well, and there are seventy four Liberals on the opposite side who are from Quebec and can explain, that Quebec is violently opposed to this legislation.
My question is simple, Mr. Speaker. Quebec would like to know how many Quebec members on the opposite side of the House have expressed their objections to this Bill, and I think the Minister should inform the House whether any Quebec members have objected to her Bill, which is unacceptable in the present circumstances.


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to inform the Hon. Member that the Members on this side of the House are always in favour of the national interest, and his is a very narrow one.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap on a short supplementary. I call to the attention of Hon. Members that long supplementar-ies are not part of the Standing Orders.


FORESTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for forestry. While we support the Government giving $50 million to Zaire, $15 million to Upper Volta, $35 million to Peru-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member put his supplementary?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Will the Minister guarantee to Canadians involved in the forest industry, particularly those involved in and concerned with reforestation, that he will give the same attention to Canadians that the Government has given to those in Upper Volta, Sudan and others, to the tune of $450 million? Will he do the same in terms of reciprocal behaviour?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion we have been and are pumping into the forest industry
some $80 million each year. That $80 million a year is being made available by the federal Government for the renewal of our forests. If the Hon. Member can multiply 80 by the number of years involved, he will arrive at a substantial figure, that is, if he can count. In addition, as has already been brought to his attention, we put in some $140 million of Canadian taxpayers' money under Unemployment Insurance, some $157 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister is repeating information that he has already put before the House. With all due respect-will the Minister please be seated? This raises questions about which all of us have been concerned. Where there is a repetition of a supplementary and a repetition of an answer, this denies other Members of the House the opportunity of participating in the Question Period.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. Yesterday the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead asked the Minister of National Revenue whether, in his view, there were any inquiries about personal information which could not be made by the Minister under the Income Tax Act. The Minister's response was "I do not think and I am even positive there are no inquiries." Upon reflection, is it the position of the Government of Canada that there are no limitations upon the range of personal information which can be demanded by the Minister of National Revenue under the Income Tax Act, including information held by municipalities, school boards and hospitals?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I think the question should be put to my colleague when he returns to the House Monday. In any case, the question put yesterday concerned enquiries made by Revenue Canada to municipalities, including requests for information that is already available to anyone in Canada who takes the trouble to ask the municipal authorities, for instance, how many commercial contracts were authorized by the municipality in the past year. That is public information, and the Hon. Member can check this with his municipality.


ACCESS TO MUNICIPAL DATA BASES-INVESTIGATION BY PRIVACY COMMISSIONER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, that answer is absolutely incredible, as the Minister will find if he reads yesterday's Hansard.
November 18, 1983

Today I have laid a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner against the Department of National Revenue, under Section 29 of the Privacy Act. Will the Acting Minister order a freeze upon such requests for direct access to data bases of municipalities, hospitals and school boards, pending the results of the investigation by the Privacy Commissioner who, after all, is an officer of this Parliament?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I think that in a case like this, wisdom dictates that the matter should be left up to the Commissioner, and it is not up to me to tell him what to do.


PIPELINES
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite out of touch with reality. The only gas that we are selling to the Americans is what is surplus to the Canadian need. The NEB has ruled that we take the consumption of gas for one year and multiply that by 25. It is only the amount above that which is sold to the Americans.
The 17 trillion cubic feet of surplus gas we have today does not include the gas in the Northwest Territories and does not include the gas that has been discovered off Sable Island in Nova Scotia, because that gas is not in a position to be delivered to the market. Canada is in a good surplus position with natural gas and it is in the best interests of Canadians to sell that surplus at this time.


ALASKA GAS PIPELINE-CONSTRUCTION OF NORTHERN LEG
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I congratulate him and the Government on their victory over me in the pipeline lawsuit. I have a simple question on the Alaska pipeline. Will the Minister please tell the House when the first shovel of dirt will be dug to begin the construction of the northern leg of the pipeline, in view of the ironclad guarantees that the Government gave the Canadian people that the pipeline would be built?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the Hon. Member lost anything. He went to court and he received justice under the law.
We have completed the prebuild. The Americans have decided not to proceed with getting gas from Alaska to their markets. In the meantime they are buying some Canadian gas. I do not know when the next section of the Alaska pipeline will be constructed. We passed a Bill in Parliament some years ago, on the undertaking by President Carter that it was urgent and that the Americans wanted to have it passed. After we passed the law, the Americans did not proceed. We proceeded under the law with the prebuild. That is where we are today. I cannot give the Hon. Member a date.


GAS SALES TO UNITED STATES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, at the Canadian-American Parliamentary Conference, Senator Murkowski of Alaska and Senator McClure of Idaho said that the Americans would not build the line as long as they could get cheaper Canadian gas. What is illogical about that? What is he telling the Canadian consumer? The fact is that the Canadian consumer will have to pay for expensive Alaskan gas in the future after we have sold out all of our Canadian gas to the Americans.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence. In New York yesterday several unnamed United States officials were highly critical of Canada's contribution to NATO, to which the Minister is quoted in the press as replying:
Canada contributes as much as the average within NATO. I'm not saying that it's sufficient; I'm not saying that it's permanent.
How can the Minister make that statement in view of the fact that Canada spends less than 2 per cent of its GNP on defence versus a NATO average expenditure of 3.5 per cent? Could he explain to the House what he means by saying that our contribution to NATO may not be permanent? Is he planning to make some changes in our relationship with NATO?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to point out to the hon. gentleman that Canada is sixth in order of importance in terms of expenditures for defence within the NATO alliance. Next year Canada will be spending $8.6 billion; this year, it is spending $8 billion. That figure does not include the facilities that we provide to our NATO allies in Suffield, Alberta, in Shilo, Manitoba, and indeed in Goose Bay, Labrador, to permit NATO troops to train within Canada. Neither does it include the cost that Canada bears for the CAST Brigade which has been identified for the north flank of Norway.
There are a number of factors that must be taken into account when Canada's contribution to NATO is identified. As I said in New York yesterday, Canada needs to take a back seat to no one in terms of its NATO contribution.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Blais:: In terms of our contribution to NATO, Mr. Speaker, I wish to identify to the hon. gentleman that, of

November 18, 1983
Oral Questions
course, this Government is always looking at ways of improving our relationship with our NATO allies. As I pointed out yesterday, Canada has a history of depending for its security upon multilateral defence alliances.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, at meetings of NATO parliamentarians at The Hague in October there would not have been a single parliamentarian or military person from NATO who would agree with the Minister's contention that Canada is carrying its fair share of the weight. Canada is last among the 16 NATO nations in contributions to defence.


POSITION OF NATO MEMBER NATIONS
Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, how can the Minister say that it is sufficient to be last among the 16 NATO nations in contibutions to defence, and how can he indicate that we are carrying our fair share of the weight in view of the fact that no one else in any other NATO country agrees with him?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, that is absolute balderdash. 1 received my NATO ministerial colleagues in Montebello, Quebec, two weeks ago. We had meetings there, and at that time none of my allies came to me and made any allegations of the kind made by the hon. gentleman. If the hon. gentleman has one iota of patriotism, 1 would hope that he would refrain from making those sorts of allegations and statements.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs who will know that the United Nations is sponsoring an international meeting in Mexico City next year on the subject of population and development. In view of the Prime Minister's interest in this subject, and in view of the fact that Madam Speaker headed a Canadian delegation to Bucharest in 1974 on this same subject, could the Secretary of State tell us today what plans he has for appointing a delegation to go to Mexico City, and could he tell us if any preparations have been made for the briefing of that delegation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the preparations for this meeting are obviously under way in the Department, but we have not yet selected the delegates. The meeting is to be held quite some time in the future. It is not normal to select delegates at this point. However, when they are selected, they will be well briefed and well prepared.


DEPARTMENT'S PLANS FOR CONFERENCE
Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Minister a brief supplementary question. I wonder if, while the Minister is stating that preparations are under way, he could at the same time tell the officials in his Department whom we must contact now that such plans are under way. At the moment, they know nothing about those preparations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his misinformation.


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a follow up to the question put by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap to the Minister of Forestry. I appreciate very much his reiteration of the commitment of the Government to the principle of renewing our forests. However, rhetoric will not relieve the backlog that has been created as a result of the deliberate policy of neglect of this Government over the last 15 years. May I ask the Minister what specifically he has done in preparation for this coming Thursday to assure that the earlier commitment to spend $130 million for the purposes of forest renewal in the next few years will be implemented and to assure that that figure is thrown into the arena, and what he has done to assure himself of adequate funding to meet the commitment that has been made by himself and by his predecessor to this very important area?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what I can say that would be new to the Hon. Member, or what I could say that would be in addition to what I said earlier. The Hon. Member's question is exactly the same as the one posed by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. 1 did indicate to that Hon. Member that he was asking me to give him information relating to matters upon which a decision still must be made.
In his question the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River makes reference to rhetoric. I would have to come back to him and snow him under with figures that are mounting into the hundreds of millions of dollars, as I did previously when making reference to unemployment insurance funds for the creation of jobs.
I realize that you are getting impatient with me, Mr. Speaker, but I must deal with the Hon. Member's approach. I would have to remind the Hon. Member about what has been done with regard to firefighting equipment and the expenditure of some $150 million for water bombers. 1 would also have to remind him of the fact that, under DREE, the federal Government has been pumping, into renewal of the forestry industry and similar approaches, some $80 million a year.
November 18, 1983

However, what the Hon. Member does not seem to realize is that the Premier of his Province has a big responsibility in the field of forestry. If forestry is in such poor shape in his Province, it is also the fault of the provincial Government for neglecting that responsibility.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government takes in in excess of $1 billion a year as revenue from the forestry and wood-converting industries. The figures he has announced this morning are pitiful in relation to the commitment that was made two years ago to spend $ 130 million-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Will the Hon. Member please ask his supplementary question?


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FORESTRY AGREEMENTS
Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, when will the Minister follow up on yet another commitment to put in place the forestry agreements with the Provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, a commitment that was to be fulfilled last year? When will these agreements be completed, and what will the Minister do to convince his Cabinet colleagues that the federal Government has a very real and direct responsibility in this area that cannot be passed on to the Provinces?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Hon. Member for giving me the opportunity of saying that I am personally committed to the cause of the forestry industry, as is everyone on this side of the House. We know of the contribution that the forestry industry makes to the economy, to the national interest, and to the long-term interest of future generations of Canadians. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that I will put forward my best efforts in this cause.


CORPORATE SHAREHOLDING LIMITATION ACT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister is trying to defend Bill S-31 by saying it is essential to protect the national interest. Since the Canadian Transport Commission already has the power to intervene in matters concerning interprovincial transport companies, how can the Minister justify a Bill that is really a present for friends of the Liberal Party, especially Mr. Ian Sinclair and Canadian Pacific?


Judith A. Erola: Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the question does not even deserve a reply. However, I shall attempt to make one. As the Hon. Member is probably aware, the powers of the CTC are
Oral Questions
not sufficient to meet the problem in this case. It was obvious that we needed the kind of legislation that would be clearcut and could easily be applied across the country in the national interest; hence, Bill S-31.
As 1 have said previously, the legislation is supported by the Provinces. We have had a number of meetings with my provincial counterparts who see the need for this kind of infrastructure legislation, and who see the need to enact it now in order to prevent problems in the future.
I would add-and I want to make this very clear-that the reason, for instance, the Caisse de depots is not trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange is because it has, by refusing to disclose, prevented itself from trading there. Let us make that very clear here before we proceed with the assumption that there is a move afoot to prevent it from trading.


CANADIAN INTERESTS-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION ON ROLE OF MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS
Svend Johannes Robinson: I have a supplementary for the same Minister. The Minister knows perfectly well that Quebec taxpayers and the Caisse de depot et de placement du Quebec have lost millions of dollars owing to the retroactive provisions of Bill S-31. Why is the Minister willing to entrust our interests to multinational corporations, while she opposes any action taken by provincial governments that are trying to serve the interests of their people by investing in Canada and not in Europe or the United States, and why does she favour the multinationals and not the Provinces?


George Albert Proud: The Bill is going to die in the Senate anyway.


Judith A. Erola: There is absolutely no move afoot which would suggest we are favouring the multinationals. Bill S-31 is there to protect the national interest. As to the Caisse de depots losing, I find that very difficult to accept. If the Hon. Member has examined the Bill, he will see that it is grandfathered and that those shares owned by the Caisse de depots, which are at the moment 9.6 of the total, are protected. That is why there is a grandfather clause-to protect the ownership of those shares which are in existence now. The amendments which we have put forward give them an increase in that area of protection. I would find it very interesting if the Hon. Member could produce for me, in dollars and cents, the loss which he alleges.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A number of Hon. Members are seeking to be recognized and the Chair proposes to recognize Hon. Members for single questions only, without supplemen-taries, for the balance of the period.

November 18, 1983
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will know that about a year ago the improvement of Canada-U.S. relations became one of the three priorities of Canadian foreign policy. Will the Minister tell us specifically what he has done to improve Canada-U.S. relations, particularly having in mind NATO, FIRA, the National Energy Program, and any other of the other perhaps score of issues where he might tell us what he has done specifically?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks a question which would take a very long answer, and perhaps we could deal with it in the standing committee. However, I would like to mention to the Hon. Member that we have established a process of consultation between the Secretary of State for the United States and myself, which is unprecedented in our history. We have agreed to meet on a regular basis four times a year, at which time we discuss bilateral questions. The fifth meeting in such a series took place recently in Halifax, and I regard that enterprise as a major effort and a major success in Canada-U.S. relations.


RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. On September 26 the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission reported to the Minister on an investigation into the affairs of Javelin International Limited which is in a scandalous state of affairs. Mr. Doyle, the controller of that company, is residing in Panama. Has the Government taken any action since receiving this report? Is the Government going to wind the company down in an orderly manner? Is the Government going to take action to put Mr. Doyle's shares in trust? And has the Government contacted the Panamanian Government to guard against any further erosion of the interests of the shareholders in Panama, as is recommended by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that we are now investigating ways to implement the recommendations of the report of the Commission. I have been in touch with the Secretary of State for External Affairs to see what moves can be taken to protect the interests of those shareholders of Javelin. I can assure the Hon. Member that we are moving in this area.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Minister may know that Winnipeg's cultural community was very upset with the comments of the Minister in which he inferred, at least, that Winnipeg would be bypassed as a cultural industry development centre in relation to a policy being developed which would centre itself on Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Could the Minister indicate to the House whether or not this is, in effect, the policy? If it is not, could he placate any fear which members of Winnipeg's cultural community may have at the present time?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, when one talks about the federal Government's programs in the field of culture, one must realize there are a number of programs, many of which have different objectives. As far as the Canada Council programs are concerned, for instance, the mandate of the Canada Council is to fund excellence wherever it is found in this country.
When 1 speak about "centres of excellence", I am basically taking about certain cultural industries which require a critical mass to develop and become productive and efficient. I noted, for instance, that the movie and program production industry in the United States has developed essentially in three cities, New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles. 1 query whether in this country we believe we can have centres of excellence in program production in the field of film and television programming in more than three or four centres. That is basically what 1 am saying.
1 am not in any way saying that Winnipeg and other cities of that kind will not receive their fair share of cultural moneys. As a matter of fact I recently announced a contribution of $2 million to the Royal Winnipeg Ballet in order to allow them to build appropriate facilities for the schooling and training of people involved with the Royal Winnipeg Ballet. 1 am presently discussing with my counterparts in Manitoba the possibility of negotiating an ERDA sub-agreement on culture.


FORESTRY
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for forestry. There is an understanding in the Canadian Forestry Service that the Cabinet has approved in principle $130 million a year in federal-provincial agreements to be committed each year for five years. Would the Minister like to make that commitment on behalf of his Government and inform the Canadian Forestry Service, and this Parliament, if indeed the Cabinet has made that approval in principle?
November 18, 1983


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the Hon. Member for the originality of his question. It has already been asked by two Hon. Members previously, one of them from his own Party. As 1 indicated to the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap, that matter has not been decided as yet. It is to go to Cabinet. The question of the commitment, therefore, is one to which I cannot give him an answer right now, except to recite again the amounts of money which the federal Government has made available to forestry across this nation, for research, for water bombers, for the creation of jobs, for forestry schools, and the like. These amounts of money, as I mentioned earlier, run into the hundreds of millions of dollars.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. A few days ago our Ambassador Gotlieb was quoted in the press as saying that he would expect there would be legislation in the American Congress in 1984 with respect to acid rain control. Can the Minister tell the House whether that anticipation is based on an expectation of administration sponsored legislation, or does the Minister believe that legislation would come as a consequence of the initiative of both Republican and Democratic Senators and Representatives?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, at this stage it is extremely difficult to engage in forecasting from where the legislation will come. I raised this matter yesterday in Indianapolis with Mr. Ruckelshaus. I have asked him where, and when, he thinks he would be able to put forward a proposal which would be acceptable to his administration. It seems to me that at this point, Mr. Speaker, in light of our experience so far, the issue of acid rain between Canada and the U.S. is becoming a leadership issue which the President of the United States must resolve himself in order to come to a decision. The administration is divided on this matter.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. A few years ago the Prime Minister issued a statement on consumer affairs in which he said:
In the mortgage field, the Liberal Government intends to make it your legal right to prepay the mortgage on your home during the first five years of the mortgage agreement, if you wish to. This will enable many Canadians to achieve
Oral Questions
significant savings at a time of high mortgage-interest costs, and will protect the home buyer from excessively high prepayment penalties.
In view of the statements coming from the Minister's office, where does she stand? Is she trying to help the more than 750,000 Canadians who are trapped by high interest mortgages? Her statements do not indicate that. Or is she merely a tool for a handful of trust companies?
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is aware, 1 am sure, that our Department has been investigating the situation for a couple of months now. We are very much concerned about the problem of those people who are locked into high interest mortgages. 1 would like to assure the Hon. Member that a contract is a contract, and we must be very careful to honour contracts, but also allow people an equitable way of reaching a solution. That is one of the reasons why my Department is acting, perhaps as an intermediary, to see if there is not a way to reach a solution.
I might add that in many circumstances we have been able to be of considerable assistance. In the meantime I can assure the Hon. Member that I, and the Minister of Finance, are looking at ways in which this Government could move to alleviate those very real problems that home owners are facing.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. While he is coming into the House, and I hope he will, I would like to recommend, Mr. Speaker, that you have glasses prescribed for the Government front bench because they seem unable to distinguish between Mr. Speaker and Madam Speaker.
Since the Solicitor General is not in the House I shall address my question to the Minister of Justice. The question relates to a former Canadian official of CIDA who was tried about a year ago in Britain on charges of espionage on behalf of the U.S.S.R.
It is clear from the evidence brought forward in public hearings at the Old Bailey that an offer of immunity was made to Mr. Hambleton, which offer has since been denied. Has the Minister read the evidence given at the Old Bailey, and has the offer of immunity been denied, or have there been second thoughts about the denial? Would he also examine the matter of who it was who warned Hambleton not to go to the United Kingdom, and why the warning was made?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was not able to read all of the proceedings in that case because some of the evidence was taken secretly. 1 understand a summary of the evidence was made available to the RCMP,

November 18, 1983
Petitions
and I had that summary available to me. 1 do not believe there was, in fact I can say categorically that there was nothing in that evidence which would cause us to change anything that either 1 or my colleague, the Solicitor General, have said before in this House on this subject. We regard the matter as closed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 17, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



VACANCY


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received a communication advising me of the following vacancy which has occurred in the representation, namely, the Hon. Walter Baker, by decease. Accordingly, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ of election for the said electoral district.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to lay upon the Table of the House, in both official languages, a copy of the report of the Law Reform Commission of Canada entitled "Alcohol, Drugs and Driving Offences". I would ask that the report be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


PETITIONS
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the people of Labrador, several thousand of whom have signed this petition calling upon the House of Commons to create a separate seat in this House for Labrador.
Labrador is unique in geography, culture and economic possibilities. It is my duty and pleasure to support this petition calling on Parliament to send the report of the Newfoundland Electoral Boundaries Commission, tabled in the House on May 27, 1983, back to the Commission to change its recommendations from a Labrador-St. Anthony district to a Labrador district and/or to introduce a Bill to create a district for Labrador.


Mr. Roger Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of approximately 2,400 people in the communities of Port aux Basques, Ramea, La Poile, Fox Roost, Margaree, Cape Ray, Petites, Harbour Le Cou and Pool's Cove, all being in the riding of Burin-St. George's.
The petitioners express their dissatisfaction with the report of the Newfoundland Electoral Boundaries Commission tabled in this House in May, and the prayer of the petition is essentially that Parliament overturn the recommended changes included in that report. It is my honour to present this petition and support it wholeheartedly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member varied a little bit from the usual form of petitions.
*****


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I make the same effort to save your tongue and the House's time it will be met with the same position from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) as it has in the past, but I once again make the offer to have all of those matters put to the House and if any Member wishes to rise he might do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I dispense with the reading of the motions?


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, some day I will explain the reason why, I am sure, but I would prefer that we deal with these matters in a normal and proper fashion.
Motions stand.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,961, 5,300 and 5,308.
November 18, 1983


Mr. Corbett: 1.	In the past six months were appointments made to the Enterprise Development Board from Atlantic Canada and, if so, who and from what locations?
2.	Do any of the appointees have past active political connections and, if so, what are they and to what extent?
3.	Have any of the individuals ever received other federal appointments to boards or commissions and, if so (a) what appointments (b) on what date and for how long?


Hon. Ed Lumley (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
reply for the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	No such appointments were made to either the Central Enterprise Development Board or to any of the four Atlantic Region Enterprise Development Boards during the period in question (December 8, 1982-June 8, 1983).
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Crouse: 1.	Is there a $7.25 million surplus remaining in the Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan and, if so, for what reason did the Government recommend a rate increase?
2.	Was the rate increased in the Scotia-Fundy area for 1983-84 in a manner disproportionate to that in other parts of Atlantic Canada and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Is the Plan adhering to the 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines for rate increases and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Does the Government intend to place the surplus into an interest bearing account with the interest received accruing to the account of the Plan?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: 1.	There was a balance of 37,250,171 in the Fishing Vessel Insurance Plan operating reserve on March 31, 1983. Premium rates have been increased because of the heavy losses experienced by the Plan in the three year period ending on March 31, 1983. The balance in the reserve fund fell by $3,375,112 in that period.
2.	No.
3.	Premium rates charged by the Plan are set so that premiums cover indemnities paid. They rise or fall as is required to pay indemnities and are not limited by the six and five program.
4.	No.


Mr. Young: Does the Treasury Board have a policy with respect to the availability of telephones compatible with the hearing aids of government employees with a hearing loss?


Mr. Peter Lang (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: The Treasury Board Policy on Increased Participation of Physically Handicapped and Mentally Hand-
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
icapped People in the Federal Public Service (PMM-Vol.4, Chap. 16 5.3.6.) states that Departments and Agencies shall: "ensure that funds are made available for the purchase of work-essential technical aids and services as required and feasible wherever the hiring or promotion of a physically handicapped person in an appropriate position requires such equipment or services".
A telephone handset compatible with hearing aids is clearly a work related technical aid and such handsets are installed when requested by hearing aid users.


John Leslie Evans: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 17, 1983 consideration of the motion of Mr. De Bane that Bill C-170, an Act to authorize investment in and the provision of financial assistance to the Atlantic Fisheries for the purpose of restructuring certain fishery enterprises, be read the second time and referred do the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the proceedings were interrupted the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) had completed his remarks and was open to a ten-minute period of questions and answers. Are there Hon. Members wishing to ask him questions? If not, I recognize the Hon. Member for Malpeque.


Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to speak on this Bill today. Bill C-170 is an Act to authorize investment in and the provision of Financial assistance to the Atlantic Fisheries for the purpose of restructuring certain fishery enterprises.
This Bill is being put through this House and Parliament to try and restructure the fishery of Atlantic Canada. We are all well aware of the problems of the fishery of Atlantic Canada. Different Provinces and different sectors of the fishery are going to be affected differently by this Bill. In this Bill "Atlantic fisheries" means:
-all the activities relating to the harvesting, processing and marketing of fish in the Provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
Island and Quebec and in the fishing zones of Canada, as defined pursuant to subsection 4(1) of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, on the Atlantic coast of Canada-
According to the interpretation clause, "control", in respect of a body corporate, means:
(o) control in any manner that results in control in fact, whether directly through the ownership of shares, stocks, equities or securities or indirectly through a trust, a contract, the ownership of shares, stocks, equities or securities of another body corporate or otherwise, or
(b) the ability to appoint, elect or cause the appointment or election of a majority of the directors of the body corporate, whether or not such ability is exercised;-
According to this Bill "fishery enterprise" means:
-any person that is engaged directly or indirectly in, or controls or is controlled by a person that is engaged directly or indirectly in, the Atlantic Fisheries; "person" includes an individual, a body corporate, a partnership, an association, a trust, a cooperative and any trustee or legal representative thereof; "restructuring", in respect of a fishery enterprise, includes the reorganization, refinancing, modernization, rationalization and expansion of the enterprise, and any similar activity directed toward making the enterprise economically viable.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to facilitate the development of viable Atlantic fisheries that are competitive and privately-owned through the restructuring of certain fishery enterprises. That part of the Bill is something which is worthwhile and I can certainly support the objective of this Bill, but the Bill goes much too far in its powers.
As described in the Bill the powers are:
4.	(I) To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty,
(a)	acquire, hold or dispose of or otherwise deal with shares, debentures or other securities of, or any security interest in, any fishery enterprise;
(b)	pledge, hypothecate or charge any share, debenture or other security, or other security interest, acquired or held under paragraph (a); and
(r) enter into any agreement or arrangement necessary or incidental to any activity referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
The guarantees under Clause 6 are:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the Minister may, with the approval of the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Finance, on such terms and conditions as the Minister specifies, guarantee the repayment of any portion of the principal and interest owing on any loan made to a fishery enterprise.
(2) The aggregate amount of guarantees given under this section that are outstanding at any one time shall not exceed one hundred million dollars.
In Clause 7 the Minister is authorized to exercise specific powers:
The Governor in Council may by order authorize any minister of the Crown, other than the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, to exercise in respect of such fishery enterprise as is specified in the order such powers referred to in this Act as are specified in the order.
Mr. Speaker, that is a lot of jargon that is hard to understand. It is definitely difficult for me, as a layman, to understand the full implications. My understanding of this Bill is that it is going to give the Government, through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) or some other designated Minister, complete control of the fishery in Atlantic Canada. There are many "anys" in the Bill. The Bill gives the Minister the power to buy, sell, trade or hold "any" sector of the fishing industry. It also gives the Minister the power to
loan or guarantee "any" amount of money to "any" fishery enterprise.
I will give you some background to the introduction of this Bill, Mr. Speaker. Due to the condition of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced the appointment of a task force on Atlantic fisheries in January of 1982. The main purpose of this task force was to recommend "how to achieve and maintain a viable Atlantic fishing industry with due consideration for the overall economic and social development of the Atlantic Provinces". The Chairman of this task force, Mr. Michael Kirby, worked primarily with 11 other people in developing the Kirby report.
Mr. Speaker, the Kirby report is the most positive report seen in decades. It was presented as an interlocking package. The federal Government is threatening the integrity and future of the report by changing some of the recommendations. The federal Government seems to be picking, choosing and switching, to suit their needs, from a report which must be viewed as a whole package in order to be effective. In the Kirby report, in a section entitled "The Harvesting Sector", recommendations in the area of fishing licences are discussed. The federal Government must accept the licensing review process. This term should be explained as the process of licensing is currently political and controlled by the federal Government.
There are no written guidelines established for companies and fishermen to follow, should they wish to expand or develop their businesses. It is the damage done to the private sector fishing industry by many years of Liberal fisheries policies which has left no alternative but to restructure the industry. The Liberal Government has encouraged excessive expansion through federal improvement loans. It has shown political interference in licensing and capital expenditures. It has been inconsistent in policy areas and has not been effective in consultations with the Provinces.
The President of the Eastern Fisheries Federation expressed his concerns about the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada by stating that the use of Government incentives had ballooned in Nova Scotia's two largest companies to the point where so much money had to be made to stay afloat that the result is too much fish on the market. He feels that the fishing industry needs to be built by people who have an interest in the fishery rather than a bunch of bureaucrats.
So far under this restructuring, only large companies are being taken over and those companies not involved could find themselves penalized for their independence. Independent firms have already reported greater difficulty in getting bank loans since the announcement of the restructuring.
Governments will be able to distort the free market system and their criteria for assistance programs in favour of their own companies. The federal Government must ensure that independent fish processors retain their share of the industry and remain prosperous to be capable of buying back the industry in the natural process of expansion. The federal
November 18, 1983

Government must follow its agreement to return the fishing industry to private ownership as soon as possible.
The restructuring of the fishing industry is a mixed blessing. While it restores needed employment in Newfoundland and offers a chance for greater provincial participation in the fishery, it also creates a situation which may lead to greater nationalization of the industry, worse economic performance and a greater dependence on Government subsidies.
The Maritime Provinces and Quebec are opposed to the federal intervention evident in the restructuring plan. These Provinces are concerned about the effects on the independent businessman and the future of these people in the fishing industry. Some Provinces are strongly opposed to the restructuring while others are reluctantly participating because they fear federal reprisals in the form of reduced quotas and expenditures.
In Nova Scotia, the largest fish processor in Atlantic Canada, H.B. Nickerson and Sons, Ltd. is to be dismantled and most of its assets turned over to National Sea Products, making that company the largest in Atlantic Canada. The amalgamation of Nova Scotia's two largest fish processing companies shows that the Governments are more interested in rescuing large corporations than in protecting the livelihood of fishermen, plant workers and small processors.
The Province of Quebec is strongly opposed to the restructuring due to federal intervention in the fishing industry. The industry is rallying fishermen and other groups to oppose the plan and is offering various types of assistance to companies or co-ops that wish to remain independent. Their main objection is that the federal plan would interrupt and delay the provincial program for plant modernization and product quality improvement. The federal Government's plan would interfere with privatization that is now taking place in the Quebec fishing industry.
Nova Scotia has agreed to take part in the restructuring largely because it fears federal reprisals in the form of reduced quotas, reduced small craft harbours funding and other types of discrimination. The Province has not signed the actual agreement as it is seeking stronger guarantees on matters such as returning the controlling interest to the private sector within a specific time. The major objections for Nova Scotia are that about 90 per cent of federal investment in the new company would go directly to repay the bank, leaving little for real industrial rebuilding; federal control in the companies; and an insecure future.
New Brunswick is also opposed to the federal Government controlling interest in fishery enterprises and the effect of the restructured companies upon independents. The industry in New Brunswick also sees a conflict of interest when it comes to distributing fish quotas, subsidies, funding and so on.
In my own Province of Prince Edward Island, the fishermen and people generally are opposed to another form of the old absentee landlord system. They fear that there will be a loss of local decision-making in the fishing industry with a negative effect on the Prince Edward Island independent companies.
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act They are not confident that the federal Government will look after the interests of the P.E.l. fishing industry as it will have to meet demands of larger companies and Provinces, and the larger companies will be given more preference than the independent processors in matters of loan guarantees, subsidies, etc.
The main concern can be summed up in the lack of confidence in the federal Government's handling of an industry which is so important to the livelihood of the Province and indeed to all the Maritime Provinces. It is the lack of trust that makes the Provinces so leery of the whole restructuring plan as the Government has a tendency to change parts of an agreement to suit the needs of the federal Government. An example of this is the way the federal Government has changed the Kirby report. It took a very detailed and comprehensive report and changed portions of it to suit its needs.
While understanding the need for restructuring the Atlantic coast fisheries, one can see that the current action of the federal Government will only create more problems as it tries to nationalize the fishing industry. Do not be fooled when the federal Government says that this is not a plan to nationalize the fishing industry. 1 personally believe that this is a federal Government plan to nationalize the industry. First, it will nationalize the Atlantic fishery and then move to the West Coast next year and nationalize the West Coast fishery as well.
I am most concerned about the smaller businesses. We do not have any large companies in the fishing industry in Prince Edward island that are suffering financially and about to go bankrupt. In Prince Edward Island there are fish processors, family-owned companies, and there are co-ops owned by the fishermen. Most of these companies are surviving though not as well as they would like. Elowever, they are still in business and are not looking for Government bailouts. They are concerned about the restructuring of the Atlantic fishery because they fear that the Government controlled fishing companies will squeeze them out of business. They are also afraid to come to Ottawa to present their concerns in front of the standing committee. I suggest it is a sad state of affairs when citizens of this country are afraid to come to Ottawa to voice their concerns to the Government.


Mr. Tobin:: Nonsense.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: The Parliamentary Secretary says nonsense. 1 have talked to processors from Atlantic Canada and those are the exact words they spoke. They are afraid to come here to voice their concerns before the standing committee because they depend on the federal Government for other forms of assistance to keep them in business. They depend upon the federal government to dredge their harbours and to put money into their harbours. They are afraid and it is not nonsense.
In his remarks on the first day this Bill was before the House, the Minister, as reported at page 28852 of Hansard, stated:

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
In entering into this agreement, the Government is acutely aware of the need to consider the situation of smaller companies in the five Provinces and the way they will relate to these three new large entities.
That is somewhat reassuring to the small independent processors but the Minister also goes on to say:
Some of these-
Referring to the small companies.
-are watching developments with a certain degree of uneasiness.
I might say that in all of the Minister's remarks about the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada, the greatest understatement he has made is that these small companies are looking at these developments with a certain degree of uneasiness. They are terrified. The processors in P.E.E to whom I have talked are terrified of this Bill. In fact, two small processors in Prince Edward Island have told me that if the Bill passes in its present form they are seriously thinking of not opening their doors next spring. Why would they do that? They are afraid that the Government will slowly squeeze them out of business. They have decided that they may as well quit now while they still have some money in the bank rather than wait until the effects of this Bill have squeezed every last dollar out of their businesses and they have to close their doors because the bank has moved in.
The small processors in P.E.I.-and it is P.E.I. that I am speaking mostly for today-and other processors in Atlantic Canada say this new Bill will cause the total demise of the small independent processors as we now know them. They have also informed me that this Bill through restructuring will probably cause the demise of the Fisheries Council of Canada because a lot of the people who participate in the Fisheries Council of Canada will be absorbed by this new company.
You might be appreciative of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the independents have formed a new organization in the Maritime Provinces. They call it FISPAC, the Federation of Independent Seafood Processors of Atlantic Canada. The people forming this new organization are putting their own money into this organization to prepare a brief, an argument, to present to the Standing Committee expressing their concerns about this Bill. I was delighted to hear that they were going to spend their own money because they believe so strongly that this Bill is not the Bill they want to see come forward. I repeat, these people are forming this organization because as individuals they are afraid to come before the Standing Committee on Fisheries because of the reprisals they see down the road from the Government in some other form.
During the course of this debate there has been some discussion as to whether or not the non-Gulf-based fleet should be allowed into the Gulf to catch the supposedly surplus stock in the Gulf. It depends upon whom you listen to as to whether or not there is a surplus of stock in the Gulf. The biologists tell us there is a surplus. The fishing companies and the fishermen of Prince Edward Island tell me their catches are going down. In fact, in 1982, with a total allowable catch in the Gulf of 31,000 metric tonnes, the total fishing capacity of
the Gulf-based fleet caught only 26,000 metric tonnes. They were not able to catch the amount of fish there for the catching because the fish were not there to catch.
In 1983, with the same quota of 31,000 metric tonnes, with the same effort, the fleet in the Gulf caught a total of 21,000 metric tonnes. Their catch was down 20 per cent in 1983 from 1982. Does that indicate, Mr. Speaker, that there is a surplus of fish in the Gulf? To me it indicates there is not a surplus of fish in the Gulf, especially when you take into account the fact that, with the same fishing effort in 1983 over 1982, the total catch was down 20 per cent.
The other concern which the independents have is the marketing approach and the countervailing U.S. tariffs that may be applied if this company is set up and the U.S. sees it as a heavily subsidized Government-operated company.
1 see you are indicating that my time is up, Mr. Speaker; I will conclude quickly. The bottom line in this Bill, as far as my appraisal of it is concerned, is purely and simply that there are just too many "anys" in this Bill. I have counted them and would you believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are 13 "anys" in the Bill? Those "anys" give the Government power to do anything it wants to do. Thirteen is a very unlucky number. Thirteen is the number of coils or loops on a hangman's noose. It is the independent processors in the fishery in Atlantic Canada who are afraid they will be hung out to dry by this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Comments, questions, answers? Debate.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity today to speak to Bill C-l 70, an Act to authorize investment in and the provision of financial assistance to the Atlantic fisheries for the purpose of restructuring certain fishery enterprises. This Bill is obviously one of the most important pieces of legislation that has come forward as far as its impact on Atlantic Canada is concerned since I came to this House in 1980. I say it is important because it affects the lives of many people throughout Atlantic Canada, not only the lives of those who are primary producers-for instance, our fishermen-but also the lives of the plant workers, the lives of the processors, large and small, and, of course, the lives of the many people who are involved in the service industries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member but I do want to listen to him. Regrettably, the conversation behind the curtains is coming across his microphone.


George Roland Henderson: This Bill affects the lives of those many people who are involved in the service industries who service the fishermen, the plants, the structure of the plants and, the physical infrastructure which makes the total fishing industry what it is. I suppose since it is a Bill that is creating controversy and has a lot of changes in mind, that is why many of the speakers before me have made eloquent speeches. They made those speeches not altogether in terms of the over-all impact of
November 18, 1983

all Atlantic Canada, but being politicians from all sides of the House Members are inclined to be protective of our own areas. That is exactly the way it should be.
I suppose that because it is a Bill that affects the lives of so many people, that is the reason for so many divergent opinions. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass), mentioned there were 13 "anys" in the Bill. I did not take the time to count the "anys" but I must say that when you have a Bill with those kinds of powers it will cause a great deal of concern to those people involved. Probably it is not what is in the Bill so much that accounts for concerns but possibly what we do not see in the Bill.
I have been around legislatures for a number of years. I was in the provincial Government of P.E.l. before I came here. I understand it is very difficult to provide a piece of legislation that is all encompassing for debate in a House. Not only is it difficult but there has to be a certain amount of latitude left in any piece of legislation so as not to be so restrictive that when passed it will be no good because it will not fulfil what it is intended to do.
I do have a number of concerns, especially about the small independent processors and fishermen. 1 represent a riding in Prince Edward Island. In the Province of Prince Edward Island fisheries is the second largest industry next to agriculture. In my riding it is probably the number one industry. There are a number of processing plants which are large by the standards of Prince Edward Island but perhaps small by the standards of Atlantic Canada.
I would like to mention specifically a few of them. For example, there is Tignish Fisheries which is co-operatively owned by fishermen. A new plant has been built to replace the old one that was there for many years. It has been the lifeblood of the Village of Tignish. It employs about 200 plant workers. It probably purchases fish from upwards to 250 fishermen in the area. The service industry in Tignish and surrounding areas service both fishing vessels and the plant itself and would employ probably another 30 people to 40 people. It is an industry, a company or a co-operative which has a great deal of involvement in the area. It has been the example of a very well-managed business, probably the best in the Province of Prince Edward Island and perhaps the best co-operative business anywhere in Atlantic Canada. It took part in the federal program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, built its new facility and modernized. That Government program was available to all small business and industries. Also the co-operative members put a lot of work into the industry itself, not only the co-operative members of today but their forefathers and indeed their grandfathers.
Also there is the Acadian Fishermens Co-op, another company with one of the most modern plants by any standards in the country. However, it has a problem as a result of the lack of resource going to that plant. I could also speak of an independent company in my riding, Polar Seafoods. It employs
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
less people but it almost works on a year-round basis. It processes lobsters, buys and ships eels, and processes smelts in the wintertime. Of course, it has a great impact upon my riding.
Another company in my riding is Paturels, a division of National Sea Products, one of the corporations which will be absorbed by this Bill. While that plant generally operates on a five-month to six-month basis, it is also important. Then there are a number of smaller processing plants, mainly buying stations throughout the riding, such as Alberton Fisheries, Milligan Fisheries, Howards Cove Seafoods and so on.
I would be very dishonest today if I rose in the Chamber and said that I was not concerned. I took the time to telephone and talk with the managers of most of those plants about the Bill. They told me about their concerns. I would also be dishonest if I did not indicate that at least three of the managers said that perhaps they do not understand the Bill. It is unfortunate that the industry found itself in its present situation and that the Bill had to come forward at this time. However it appears to be the lesser of many evils. They recognized that something had to be done for the industry.
The Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary indicated in their speeches that this was not a panacea for all ills of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada. I am sure it is not. However, I have not heard any speeches in the House on this Bill-and I have read most of them-which provide any clear-cut alternative to the situation with which we are faced.
The Hon. Member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons) made an excellent speech yesterday on the restructuring Bill. He indicated in glowing terms what it meant to his area. I can fully agree with that because it means an awful lot to the Province of Newfoundland. The Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said that he was supporting it because it meant a lot to his area; he has many plants in his area. Other Hon. Members indicated to the House in glowing terms that although they were not totally satisfied, it was necessary at this time in order to save an industry which affects so many people. I have read the speech of the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell). She expressed the same concerns as many of us. However, as I went through all these speeches, I could not find any suggestion better than what is contained in the Bill before us today.
I spent four years in the Province of Prince Edward Island as the provincial Minister of Fisheries. I remember back in 1977 when the federal Government, under the former Minister of Fisheries, negotiated and signed the 200-mile limit agreement for the country. I think everyone hailed it as a great step forward as far as the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada was concerned. However, I also remember the headlines in the Nova Scotia newspaper. The former Minister under the former Government and Ministers thereafter hailed it as such a tremendous agreement that they must immediately jump in, expand the industry, replace vessels and build new vessels. I remember the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for Canada telling them at that time to go slow, that we had the

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
catching capacity. At that time there were talks about $200 million and even more to be invested.
1 heard some Hon. Members opposite laying the total blame for the situation today on the shoulders of the federal Government. I do not agree that the total blame should fall on the shoulders of the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. As a former Minister of Prince Edward Island, I know that we all tend to be parochial. Provincial politicians have to be parochial and we can understand that. They would not be doing their jobs if they were not.
Let me look at the management of some of the businesses. A number of years ago managers were scrambling for DREE grants to improve their facilities, to expand their facilities, to buy up quotas and so on. They put pressure upon the federal Government for larger quotas and more access to fish. I remember also the provincial Governments of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland saying that they want more. They are still at it. Very little came from the 200-mile agreement for the Provinces of Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick or the Gulf-based ports and fishermen.
There are concerns. This Bill is totally necessary for the Province of Newfoundland. We are here today to discuss a situation. We can look back and blame whoever we like, but that is not why we are here. The situation has to be addressed as it is today. An industry in Newfoundland is facing total collapse. There are problems in Nova Scotia as well. What happens if we allow those companies to go bankrupt? What happens to the small independents? There is concern about inventories and fire sales. There may be some vehicles within Government to prevent that, but I have not seen any vehicle that would be satisfactory to all Governments and all people.
The independents have some concerns and I hope they will be addressed when the Bill goes to committee. One concern is what will happen with the market situation. Will the small independents have the same access to markets as the large corporations? These questions must be addressed. Government through its shares will be a partner in these corporations. They will control the allocations. Will these allocations be used to the advantage of the corporations, thereby creating unfair competition for the independent plants? That question must be addressed.
Will these corporations use the profits from one species to subsidize another species? For example, will profits from groundfish be used to subsidize lobster, or vice-versa, there by creating unfair competition? These concerns can be addressed. 1 do not think it is the intent of Government to create unfair competition. However, once this Bill goes through, there must be some direction as to how these Crown corporations operate. They must help the small businessmen and the fishermen rather than work in opposition to them. I am sure no Member would agree with Government creating unfair competition for the small businessman.
When this Bill goes to committee, 1 hope we will hear from the small independents, the fisheries groups and all those
involved in the plants, the catching sector and the marketing of fish. I hope they will air their concerns before the committee and that the Minister and his staff will be able to alleviate some of these concerns.
That is the main problem for the small independent processors. If they are convinced that this Bill will not provide unfair competition, they will have no problem accepting it. Like the rest of us, they understand the impact of the fishery on all Atlantic Canadians. The processors and fishermen from my area realize what this Bill means to the Provinces of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec. However, other Provinces than those around the Gulf expect a fair shake from this restructuring.
I do not want to prolong this debate. I hope all Provinces will take an objective view of this and bring their concerns before the committee. We are here to help all those involved in the industry, whether they be involved in catching, processing, marketing or in the servicing of the industry. I appreciate the opportunity to make these remarks.


Melbourne Alexander Gass: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment. I listened closely to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). He shares some of my concerns for the independents. Toward the end of his remarks, he made a statement on which I would like to comment. He referred to unfair competition for the independents as a result of this large corporation owned and controlled by the Government. I believe he was sincere when he said that this large corporation would not get involved in unfair competition.
1 would point out that in the past Government-owned companies have become involved in unfair competition. Petro-Canada has taken out giant, full page ads in Atlantic Canada and elsewhere to advertise giant tire sales in direct competition with tire dealers in Atlantic Canada, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada. There have been $100,000 ads in local papers in direct, unfair competition with tire dealers in Atlantic Canada. I hope there will not be this type of unfair competition for independent processors in Prince Edward Island and other parts of Atlantic Canada.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will just respond briefly. I said in my speech that these concerns must be alleviated for the small, independent processors so that there will be no unfair competition. Over the last number of years, with regard to the setting of shore prices for lobster, for example, processors have been in competition with National Sea Products and Nickerson's which over the years have received tremendous sums of money from Government, far more than the small independents.
They have had to compete with those people. I said in my speech that sometimes the large corporations would use the profit from one section of their operation to try and put the small businessman out of business. That is not fair. We should look at that and ensure that competition is fair. The managers of the independent processors are not afraid of fair competition. We must do our best to ensure that competition is fair.
November 18, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The Chair has been made aware through the courtesy of some Hon. Members that there may be a wish to accommodate the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), who 1 understand has a plane to catch this afternoon. So far as 1 understand, it would be appropriate if I were to recognize that Member and call it one o'clock so that he might begin promptly at two. That understanding includes the idea that since there would have been two Government speakers in a row, I would look twice to the Official Opposition for Members to speak. I know that these consultations have been limited. Provided Hon. Members seem to be content, we will proceed that way.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, on the question that you have raised, the procedure that you have just outlined to the House will be entirely acceptable to those of us on the Opposition side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: 1 thank the Hon. Member. Accordingly, the Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) to be seen at two o'clock for purposes of debate.
It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I will begin by thanking my colleagues on the other side of the House, particularly the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), for allowing me to speak in this specific order. I will be brief in my remarks. However, 1 do believe it is important to place certain things on the record with regard to this Bill. It is certainly not my intention to hold up the passage of this Bill but to give it support.
I remember very well, Mr. Speaker, the earlier discussions we had with regard to the restructuring of the fisheries on the Atlantic coast, resulting from the Kirby report. One option certainly was to allow the companies as they existed at that time to declare bankruptcy and then to allow the private sector to pick up whetever pieces it could. That particular option, although it lent itself to the consideration of the Cabinet at that time, was not considered because of the dislocation it would cause, particularly among those who worked in the various plants. There would be a wide disruption throughout the Province.
Also, although it is important to have the private sector front and centre-and I hope eventually the private sector can regain its prominence in the fishery in Newfoundland-it seemed to a lot of us, including myself, that having the
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act Government of Canada involved was the best option we could follow. Ensuring federal support would ensure the success of that particular company. Indeed, it was not clear how it could be done otherwise, in view of the fact that the investment required was obviously not readily available in the private sector. Therefore, I believe this option, although not perfect, is the best option to follow.
That view, of course, is shared by this Government and the Government of Newfoundland, 1 believe by the fishermen in Newfoundland, and indeed by a lot of the companies in Newfoundland. However, there are some small independent processors in the Province who have some concerns.
I believe the present arrangement is a good compromise and I want to congratulate this Government and the Government of Newfoundland for working out this particular compromise. I want to pay particular tribute to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane). Without him we would not have had the agreement we have now. Indeed, had he been allowed full rein at a much earlier date we would have had this settlement much earlier on. The judgment, concern and personality of the Minister was no small factor in arriving at this compromise. He is from rural Canada and understands what our Province is all about and what the fishermen and processors in the small communities need and want. I pay tribute to his personal work in bringing about this compromise we have.
However, there are some concerns among the independent processors in the Province. Their fear is that they will be swallowed up by this giant company and eased out of the marketplace. We have to assure them that is not going to be the case. I for one will ensure that once this agreement is in place and both Governments have put the new company into operation, the interests of the small, independent fish merchants in Newfoundland are looked after, both in processing and marketing. They have survived the recession. They have prospered, survived and provided employment. It is the big players in the industry who have conducted themselves in such a way as to need this help. That is regrettable, and all the more reason why we have to make sure that even though this does not address in particular terms the interests of the small independent processors in the Province, those concerns have to be addressed and I am sure will be once this restructuring is in place.
1 am also concerned about the Kirby report recommendation for what is called the resource-short plant program. Plants along the northeast coast of Newfoundland and along the coast of Labrador have been seasonal operations principally because there has not been the supply of fish readily available. A lot of these plants depend on the inshore, small boat fishery and the supply of fish has been such as not to allow them to operate for the major part of the year. This throws fishermen and plant workers on unemployment insurance, which they do not want, and the only way to resolve the problem is to ensure a steady supply of fish throughout the greater part of the year. That can be done only through a supply of offshore fish with a

recommended. The Government of Newfoundland has said it would like more time to study this matter. At a future date I may propose an amendment to this Bill which will put into practice what Kirby has recommended but which will not proclaim that amendment in law until such time as the Provinces of Newfoundland and Quebec, if this is to apply in that Province too, have been consulted.
Possibly there are other ways of doing what we want to do but 1 have not been shown them to the present time. I can accept that people may need more time to study this particular matter. However. I cannot accept that those plants will not open next Spring. At this time there is a great danger that if something is not done, not only will St. Anthony not open, but there will be plants along the Labrador coast which will not open next year. I cannot support or tolerate that, Mr. Speaker.
it is my intention to put forward at a later time an amendment that could possibly be of help. That amendment will propose changing the Saltfish Corporation Act to allow it to do what Kirby has recommended and what we believe should be done. If that particular vehicle is not the answer, I hope some other mechanism can be found. Until such other mechanism is found, I can only stand behind what the Kirby report has recommended.
In conclusion, I would like to say that I support this particular Bill. I believe it should be speedily passed by the House because it is extremely important to our Province. The fishery is the mainstay of Newfoundland. Possibly it is not the most lucrative industry that we have, but it is the most important in terms of culture and heritage as well as economically. The communities in rural Newfoundland and Labrador which are based on the fishery capture the heritage that has been passed on to us from the past. Without a strong fishing industry the very communities that give Newfoundland its unique culture and flavour would be very severely jeopardized. I hope this Bill can get speedy passage and this restructuring idea can be put into practice very swiftly indeed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Are there Hon. Members seeking to ask questions of the Hon. Member who has just spoken?


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the idea put forward by the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) that he would like to see a northern fisheries development corporation put in to effect to look after the fishing industry off the coast of Labrador and possibly northern Newfoundland. Could the Hon. Member elaborate on the way that such a corporation might be controlled? Who would sit on its board of directors? Does he envisage both provincial and federal membership? If such an organization ever came into being, how would it be financed? How much money is he looking for? Is it $50 million or $100 million? Where would that money come from? Would some of it come from the fishing operators? Would some of it come from the Province? What would he expect the federal Government to put into the kitty?
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that question was asked. The Government of Canada has already approved $15 million for the capitalization of this new venture. Although it has not yet gone through all of the Government channels that money has been approved by the Government of Canada and is ready to be spent on the capitalization of this new company once approval has been received. It is understood that plants would have to be bought and upgrading would have to be done.
The details regarding how it would operate have not been worked out. We are talking about the principle of setting up a northern development corporation. I can give an example of how the Canadian Saltfish Corporation has operated in the past, and that is to use agents. The Canadian Saltfish Corporation has operated as a clearing house for agents in the private sector up to the present time..It has told small companies that if they catch and process saltfish they will be the agents of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and the Corporation will buy it from them. The Corporation will market the fish and if it gets a better price than it pays the fishermen, that money goes back to the actual fishermen involved.
I think the fishermen in Newfoundland would say that the Canadian Saltfish Corporation has been a blessing to them. All through this time when the fishery itself was suffering severely, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation and saltfish market was a positive force in the fishery in Newfoundland. In 1982 the Canadian Saltfish Corporation ran the plant at St. Anthony. It had a subsidiary company. Although we did not have an actual board of directors from the community, there was an advisory group in the community that advised the Saltfish Corporation.
I would be open and flexible regarding how this would operate. I fully support the idea of the Government of Newfoundland having a say in this because fish plants are a provincial operation. I welcome the co-operation that we have seen between the two Governments. I would not want to see it dissipate. I believe there are ways of ensuring that the provincial voice is heard in the operation of this particular company.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). My question relates to that underlying misgiving that I detected in his comments relating to the uncertainty of the role that the individual processor can have under this Bill.
Given the deplorable record of his Government in handling the fisheries problems off the East Coast, what gives him any encouragement at all to feel that under this Bill, where there is nothing explicit in this regard, due account will be made for these individual processors? I would like to hear his comments. I suspect that he has real misgivings here that the Government may not take into account the proper role of the individual processor?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my approach is to fight one battle at a time. I do not think we can solve all of the problems

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act today. I believe we have laboured long and hard to get where we are today.
I said that this Bill is not perfect but it is the best that we can do. It is the best that the human mind could come up with and the best on which two Governments could agree. It is a step we had to take today and 1 think we should take it quickly because I believe it is important for the industry in Newfoundland.
It does not answer all the concerns. I do have concerns about the small, independent processors. However, 1 will say that they have survived in the past in spite of the fact that we know what has happened to the larger companies. 1 think the Government of Canada has been cognizant of their operations and indeed I know specific instances where Government programs were used to support the small, independent processors.
I do have some concerns. 1 do not believe that all my concerns are answered today by this Bill but that is a battle we will have to fight at a later time. All of us who are concerned about those small, independent processors will have to make sure that within the mechanism that is set up and within Government policy generally, those small processors who have survived and have given employment to small communities are not left out in the cold but are looked after. I believe that very firmly and strongly.
I make the commitment to the Hon. Member that I, for one, will see to it in the days to come that their interests are not neglected but indeed very much looked after.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in hearing the Hon. Member from Newfoundland talk about the importance of the fisheries in terms of the heritage of Newfoundland, the importance of these corporations and agencies and why we in Parliament should be very supportive of him.
My brief comment is that 1 am just a farm boy from the Prairies and I do not know much about fish. However, I support what he says and the way he said it with respect to the necessity to recognize this as an important part of the heritage of the people of Newfoundland. I am hopeful that the House will be very supportive of helping the fishermen.
Why did he not support us when we talked about the importance of the Crow rate to the heritage of the Prairies? Why did we not get the same kind of support from him? 1 put that in the form of a question because I am curious why we could not persuade him to support us for something that was very important to the heritage of our country and to what our pioneers built? Why was the Member not very supportive of us and would he be more supportive of us in the future?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member is not obliged to answer a question.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his support for this particular Bill and for what I am trying to accomplish. However, 1 would have to say to him, as he said, that I am from another part of the country and perhaps I do not fully understand the implications of what the Crow is
doing. But in answer to his question, I would just read from an editorial in the Edmonton Journal:
The federal NDP fought for the old Crow as though it were fighting for its own life-which it is in Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
The federal Tories counselled delay as they tried to come down on both sides of the fence.
In the end, the Liberals came to Western Canada's rescue, mostly under the leadership of former Transport Minister Jean-Luc Pepin. For this, the Liberals deserve our thanks.
1 put that on the record as being as impartial, I suggest, as one would want to get-certainly from my perspective-from the Edmonton Journal. If it says good things about the Liberals it should not be questioned. That would be my answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: One short comment because time is almost up.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not care what the Edmonton paper says; 1 want to know what the Member feels because 1 would like to support him and what is important to his heritage. 1 want to know how he feels as a Member about my heritage and my part of the country.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, in order to accomplish things in the long term sometimes tough decisions must be taken which are painful in the short term. We have experienced this in the Atlantic region. I can tell the Hon. Member that in the same way he may feel some people are experiencing this in the West, we have seen changes in CN Express in Newfoundland. We have seen some changes in the marine coastal operations. We have also seen a lot of improvements. We in the Atlantic Provinces feel that we should be putting our money into what is important in the long term for our area. While that may cause some change and short-term pain, 1 believe in the long term that the politics that are put into place will be beneficial.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for that exchange which took place just now because I think we must regard this particular legislation in the same way as the Prairies regarded the Crow Bill. Fisheries and fish are to the East Coast, and particularly to Labrador, what grain and grain shipment are to the Prairies. There is no question about that in my mind.
Whether this Bill is doing the right thing or not is another matter but it is an important Bill. 1 call Bill C-170 the FishCan Bill because I think we are looking toward the emergence of a creature of Crown proportions which we might call FishCan. My initial comments on this Bill relate to the unusual form which this Bill takes. I do not know how many Members have noticed that it is almost in the form of a resolution rather like the Constitution with all its "whereases". In fact, there are four whereas clauses before we come to the Bill's short title. 1 examined a couple of Bills in the consolidated statutes to see whether there is any parallel to other legislation. It may very well be that when this Bill is published in the Statutes of Canada, the preamble will vanish and it will begin with the short title. However, I still find it rather unusual that there should be these reasons for bringing
November 18, 1983

the Bill forward through the "whereas clauses". I hope the Minister or some other Member opposite will be able to explain that to us. This Bill has been brought forward in an unusual form.
I wish to confine myself to three or four comments on specific areas related to this Bill. My first comment concerns a caution that we must all bear in mind. We are seeing emerge from this Bill a monstrous creature of two Governments which, by what must be a very formal agreement, are deciding to act in concert for the salvation of an important industry. During the preparation of my speech I saw in the material the notion that this Bill is not going to create a Crown corporation. I find that extremely difficult to understand. Perhaps it is a two-Crown corporation since the federal and the provincial Governments are entering into the agreement together. It will have to be a double Crown corporation similar to the dual monarchy in the Austrian-Hungarian empire. Perhaps that is why I have read that it will not be a Crown corporation.
Nevertheless, the manner in which this particular creature of Governments will be acting will be similar to a Crown corporation. This leads me to the conclusion and fear that this may just be a model for something that is going to come about on the West Coast as well.
In this connection I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the reply made yesterday by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to a question put to him by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller). As reported at page 28940 of Hansard, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans replied to that question as follows:
1 hope that early in the new year I will be able to put before cabinet an important program to give a new start to the Pacific fisheries, exactly as we have been doing for the Atlantic fisheries.
I am sure the NDP will be delighted at this particular operation. It looks very much as though we are going to have two Crown corporations, one on the East Coast and one on the West Coast. I think though that it will be done in the face of a great deal of opposition.
The direction by Governments of industries of this sort is contrary to the whole philosophy of the fishermen on the West Coast. I speak with some knowledge of one particular group, and I venture to say that even the UFAWU might have some misgivings at being bunched under the same Crown with a number of other enterprisers in that part of Canada in an effort to model, direct, control and put fisheries into a common mould on the West Coast. I wonder how, given the dreadful record of this Government in managing anything in the enterprise field, it should have the temerity to stand before us and bring forward another management technique. However, it was a decision in many respects, I suppose, which was forced upon them by the consequences of past performance. I will come to that in a few minutes. In order to bail itself out and to bail out those enterprises which the Government has virtually destroyed, it has had to resort to this particular means.
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
I do think it is worth entering a word of caution at this stage about the impact and the long-term significance of a move of this sort-the creation of a Crown corporation, with virtually unlimited powers, to enter a field of enterprise.
My next comment relates to a peculiar what I think must be described as a conflict, if not of laws, at least a conflict of Bills. In Bill C-170 we have the proposal that the federal and provincial Governments enter into agreements to run a fisheries enterprise. They are doing this in any manner that results in control in fact, whether directly through the ownership of shares, stocks, equity or securities. In other words, there will be an equity position of Governments in this operation.
I see in the Newfoundland agreement, the only one so far of which there is any text, that the proportions as between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland of the common shares of the enterprise shall be for the Government of Canada to hold 60 per cent and for the Government of Newfoundland to hold 25 per cent, with the remainder partly being held by the Bank of Nova Scotia and a small proportion being held by the employees. More employee participation would obviously be welcomed. But the point I am trying to make-and I think this needs to be underlined-is that the Government of Canada, once the restructuring is completed, will hold the shares in the proportion of 60 per cent, with 20 per cent held by the Government of Newfoundland. That is as foreseen by an agreement that will depend on Bill C-170.
I have before me Bill S-31 which we shall be seeing, no doubt, in the not too distant future. I would like to read Clause 3 of that Bill into the record because it deals with limitations. It reads as follows:
Subject to section 6, no government shall hold or beneficially own more than ten per cent of the shares of any class of shares of a corporation.
Let me point out that the Bill states 10 per cent. We are talking on the one hand of 60 per cent ownership by the federal Government and 25 per cent ownership by the Government of Newfoundland in Bill C-170. But here is Bill S-31 which has a specific purpose in mind, but it has limitations of ownership in any corporation and any Government. The definitions make that quite clear as follows:
"government" means Her Majesty in right of a province and includes
(a)	an agent of Her Majesty in that right, and
(b)	a body corporate that is controlled by Her Majesty in that right.
That limits that Government's participation to 10 per cent. We are talking about an agreement that has already been concluded, according to the Government of Newfoundland, giving a 25 per cent share in this enterprise. I have a funny feeling that this Government does not know what it is doing. Its right hand does not know what its left hand is doing. Mainly it is left-handed; I mean that in the philosophical sense. I am not talking about ambidexterity at all; I am talking about philosophical leftists. That is the problem. I guess it has two left hands and one of the left hands does not know what the other one is doing.
Ten per cent as against 25 per cent causes me considerable concern, Mr. Speaker. We will in the course of time, no doubt,

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act be asked to look at Bill S-31. Unless we are aware that Bill C-170 has already accorded to a Government a holding of more than 10 per cent in a corporation, then we may just blunder into accepting S-31 without thinking.
There is one proviso we have to recognize also. This is the other side of the story; it is to be found in Clause 6. Clause 3 does say "subject to Section 6". Clause 6(2) of Bill S-31 reads:
The Governor in Council may by order declare that setion 3 or 5 or both shall not apply in respect of any corporation or class of corporations specified in the order.
Section 3 above referred to is Clause 3 I read earlier. The Governor in Council "may" order. In other words, this is not going to be a parliamentary decision; this will be a Government decision. If Bill S-31 were to be passed and be matched side by side with Bill C-170, we would find that the Government would eventually catch up to itself and that it had passed some inconsistent legislation. Then, without reference to Parliament, it will by order declare that Clause 3 shall not apply. This is a danger which I think is worth drawing attention to.
My next comment relates to international agreements. I noticed something in the agreement worked out with Newfoundland, and this is drawn from a press release issued by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans dated October 31. There is provision in the agreement the federal Government worked out with the Province of Newfoundland for the creation of a resources utilization task force composed of equal representation from the two levels of Government. One of the prime objectives of the mandate of this task force will be to review and report upon, first, the displacement of foreign fishing effort and, second, the harvesting of underutilized species and the development of markets for those species.
This takes us back a few years to the days just before the unilateral declaration by the Government-and it is an honourable declaration-of a 200-mile exclusive economic zone, in particular the 200-mile fishing zone. Prior to that declaration there was forethought; there is no question about that. However, what was behind the conclusion of the agreements with foreign countries for the exploitation of stocks, particularly on the East Coast, was the assurance that the countries with which Canada was concluding agreements would be on the same side as Canada in the discussions relating to the Law of the Sea Conference. That was a worthy objective.
What happened in order to buy that support for subsequent meetings of the Law of the Sea, which is very important to us, was that certain countries, some for historic reasons and some for perhaps philosophical reasons, were granted authority to fish stocks in our waters within the 200-mile limit, stocks which were not utilized by Canadian offshore fishermen. 1 am speaking only of the East Coast at the moment. It may be of interest to Hon. Members opposite, who may not have looked into the matter very deeply, to learn that the countries with which Canada concluded agreements to use surplus stocks and stocks Canadians did not use, did not have to process them in Canada. I will come back to that in a moment, but they were
to take off the stock for use in their own countries or for use in barter deals with third countries.
The countries with which Canada made arrangements at that time were Bulgaria, Cuba, the German Democratic Republic, Poland and Romania, an interesting collection. In addition, of course, there were the historical fishermen off the East Coast-Denmark, France, United Kingdom, Portugal and Spain. Probably Portugal and Spain were fishing off the East Coast before any Canadians were here. They had their historical rights. As for Romania, I wonder. Was Romania fishing there before Canada was settled? Was Bulgaria fishing there before Canada was settled? What about Cuba? Perhaps Cuba, through Spain, was fishing there. Were the German Democratic Republic and Poland fishing off the East Coast before Canada was settled?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The German Democratic Republic was looking for red snappers.


Donald W. Munro: That is probably what they were after. As a matter of fact, they were fishing for capelin and other unused and surplus stocks. What was forgotten in the conclusion of those agreements was that once those surplus stocks were caught, they should have been brought to the mainland or to Newfoundland to be processed. That is part of the dismal record of the Government. It did not ensure that what was caught in our waters was processed on our shores. Now we find that it has to resort to extraordinary devices such as dual Crown corporations which have been devised in order to rescue an ailing but important industry.
I do not deny-and I mentioned it right at the beginning- that the fishing industry on the East Coast is extremely important, as it is on the West Coast. However, I am talking mainly about the East Coast because we are dealing with an East Coast matter. This is another aspect of the Bill which has not been given proper attention. Are you feeling uneasy, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Your time has just about expired.


Donald W. Munro: That being so, I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and will conclude my remarks. I have more, though.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). I was very interested in his presentation and in the facts to which he referred about the amounts of Canadian fish being taken by countries that cannot claim to have historic fishing rights off Newfoundland, countries such as Bulgaria and Romania. If the Hon. Member suddenly became Secretary of State for External Affairs or Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, how would he approach the problem? Presumably we have agreements with these countries that cannot be abrogated out of hand. How would he go about reducing the catch taken by these other countries?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) for his
November 18, 1983

question. It would not be an easy matter to abrogate treaties. 1 do not think treaties can be abrogated. Canada has no tradition of abrogating treaties. However, the treaties are for a term and when they come up for renegotiation, the most suitable manner of renegotiating them would be to allow the take to continue, provided the processing was done on Canadian territory.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just a short question for the Hon. Member. It follows on the heels of something which he raised. It deals with the matter of putting their position on the record. We probably share some common positions on the matter. However, since he raised it and since there are many outstanding issues, would the Hon. Member put on the record his Party's position on cancellation of B fishing licences? What kind of action would his Party take against chartered banks that have been very difficult on fishermen over the last couple of years with vessel seizures in some of the most nefarious circumstances which could be conjured up?
What is its position on the removal of such things as the punitive tax on fuel which is extremely difficult for fishermen? What position has his Party put forward on that? What is its position on the delay in providing adequate harbour facilities? As he knows, the fishing industry is under tremendous strain. What is his Party's position on icing facilities, harbour and mooring facilities? We know its position on restraint, but where does it stand on assisting and developing the economy? What is his position on fleet reduction and fleet structure when the reduction is complete? Finally, what is the position of his Party on royalty and the proposal for finnage tax? The previous speaker did raise the spectre of parallels between East Coast solutions and West Coast solutions. His Party had better put some of those positions on the record very quickly so that people can make judgments.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My friend from the New Democratic Party is, of course, playing a game this afternoon. This is a very serious debate on a Bill which is designed to alleviate a crisis situation in Atlantic Canada. The question that my NDP friend from the West Coast of British Columbia is asking of my colleague who just spoke has almost no relevance whatsoever to what we are discussing today. He knows perfectly well that on all of those questions there has been plenty of evidence in committee and in other places and at meetings I have attended as well as press releases I have made on the West Coast which has given adequate answers. I urge, Mr. Speaker, that you exercise your prerogative and rule him out of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hopefully the Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) will keep his comments short.


Raymond John Skelly: Yes, Mr. Speaker, very definitely. The problems in some areas are common to fishermen on both coasts. Second, the previous speaker raised the matter in a somewhat
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
flippant and frivolous manner. If they continue to do that, they should put up or shut up on the issue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has a brief period in which to comment, if he cares to do so. However, the Chair would caution him on relevance.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I shall be absolutely relevant to the questions that were asked.


Raymond John Skelly: Don't flounder now.


Donald W. Munro: I am no piker, 1 can assure you of that. The quickest way to find out what are the policies of a Progressive Conservative Government would be to support the Progressive Conservatives in a call for an election. Then you will find out that there is a much more co-ordinated and rational policy on the West Coast and on the East Coast for the fisheries.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the Hon. Member for Western Arctic rising for questions and answers?


Dave Nickerson: For debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I was concerned that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) was standing both this morning and again this afternoon. I do not have in front of me a list of speakers. If the Hon. Member for Western Arctic is agreeable, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I am reminded that earlier today I indicated that there would be two Official Opposition speakers as a result of the consent that was given in the House. Perhaps I should look the other way. I will ask the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway to stand down for a moment and I will recognize, pursuant to the agreement made earlier today, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I enter this debate unhampered by any degree of first-hand knowledge of the issue we are discussing. Therefore, 1 can assure you that my views will be entirely objective. 1 also want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that despite my name being Nickerson, I have absolutely no conflict of interest with this Bill. As far as I know, I have no relationship with the well-renowned Nickersons of Nova Scotia who have had a long and honourable association with the fisheries business. In discussing the Bill before us today, Bill C-170, which seeks to facilitate the reorganization of the Atlantic Fisheries, I want to go back a bit in history.
Canada is extremely well endowed with natural resources. Not only do we have fish on the East Coast, West Coast and the inland areas, we also have minerals, oil and gas and a lot of good agricultural land. Despite this endowment by nature, we are not the world's wealthiest country, which we should be. I suspect that our climatic conditions may have a little bit to do with this, but I am sure that the main reason in the other resource industries is the same as in the fishing industry, namely that we have been pursuing the wrong policies for

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act many years. The Government of the day always wants to concentrate on those sexy industries in central Canada.
We get carried away with computers and microchip technology and forget that probably the real wealth of Canada is in the resource industries, agriculture, timber husbandry, mineral development and, the matter we are discussing today, fisheries. Europeans first came to Canadian East Coast waters in the sixteenth century, I believe, to exploit the fantastic potential of the fisheries in that area. They have been there ever since.
Just a few years ago on the occasion of the extension of Canada's fishing boundary up to the 200-mile limit, 1 remember reading in publications such as the Financial Post that the future of the Canadian East Coast was assured because these moves had been taken. It looked like that part of the country was to become the most wealthy part of Canada. I wonder why this never took place. It never worked out the way the predictions said it would happen.
I guess that costs continued to escalate in large part because of the Government's inflationary policy, high interest rate policy and taxation on petroleum products, which are so important to the fishery, and also because of its high income tax on fishermen. The Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), who I would have suspected would have had the best interests of fishermen at heart when he was Minister of National Revenue, came down harder than any previous Minister of National Revenue in Canada on the fishermen whom he represented. Therefore the costs have increased.
The market demand for the products of the East Coast fishery unfortunately has not escalated in the way we had hoped. Perhaps some of the problems brought to light by my friend, the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), such as the continued volume of East Coast fish being taken by foreign competitors, has something to do with that. Because the market demand has not been there, prices have not risen as we anticipated. In fact, they decreased considerably in many instances.
My colleagues from the East Coast described the failure of the Liberal Government fisheries policy much better than 1 could do. They demonstrated in this House how these failures of Liberal policy have exacerbated a bad market situation. We come to the present time where the major part of East Coast fishery, the deep sea industry and the operators of large plants, are bankrupt to all intents and purposes. Faced with this question, what is it that a Government should do? I guess that if we could look at this in strictly academic terms and run the whole fisheries of Canada out of the building across the way from here and did not have to bother with the social issues the way they should be faced, the Government would have to do very little or nothing. We could let the fishing companies, the processors and the banks take their losses. I suspect that after awhile, the industry would reorganize itself. It would not need a Bill from this House. Somebody would eventually come along and buy out the assets at ten cents on the dollar or whatever the market value of those assets were. Some of the
smaller marginal plants would probably be closed down and the purchaser would get the industry going again. Perhaps some of successful smaller companies that exist at the present time would take over some of the plants that are not operated economically by the larger companies.
It is unfortunate but true that we cannot allow that to happen. I do not think any Government of Canada could allow that to happen because, Sir, the social consequences would be disastrous. I listened carefully to the speech made by the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Tobin) yesterday, and I am convinced that what he said could happen in those parts of Newfoundland that he represents would come true were the Government to do nothing. Therefore, the Government must do something and must be seen to be trying to do something.
The plan that we have before us now would see possibly two large fish companies coming into existence with part Government ownership at the provincial and federal levels in which the bank and the fishing companies would have some interest. It would appear that an agreement has been reached in the case of the Province of Newfoundland, but unfortunately it appears that negotiations have already broken down with the Province of Nova Scotia.
I have listened to the debate so far in the House, Mr. Speaker, and I have found it quite interesting. It is a debate that has not broken down along Party lines. It has broken down along geographic lines with Hon. Members representing the deep sea areas where these large companies operate generally being very supportive of the Bill. The two Hon. Members who represent the constituencies of St. John's East and St. John's West, for instance, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries have spoken in favour of the Bill. We on this side of the House have listened to those arguments and see the reason in them. For those reasons, we will not oppose this Bill on second reading.
However, we on this side of the House have also listened to Members such as the Hon. Member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and several Hon. Members from Prince Edward Island on both sides of the House. We have listened to the Hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), South Shore (Mr. Crouse) and South West Nova (Miss Campbell). The Hon. Member for South West Nova was extremely vocal on this issue yesterday. These Hon. Members representing the inshore areas and the small plant areas have a very different perception of the Bill.
The people in those areas are scared of what might result from this Bill if it is taken to its logical conclusion in the years to follow. They see a very large Government backed competitor possibly becoming a monopoly. They see these large organizations having a great power in the marketplace that is not available to the smaller operators. I can see that possibly, a couple of years down the road, the Government will be coming back to the House of Commons asking for an exclusive monopoly on marketing by these corporations. I certainly
November 18, 1983

would be very scared of that if 1 were a small fisherman or small plant owner or operator.
The Government, Sir, controls all of the rules of the game in the fishing business. It controls the quotas and the regulations governing the way in which one might fish. The Government decides where improvements such as wharves and harbours might be built. This would cause me great concern were 1 to be a small fisherman or small fish plant operator. Those small fishermen and small fish plant operators are scared of the competition from highly subsidized Government backed competitors.
In a way it is ironic, or perhaps it shows how the market system operates fairly well when left alone, that many of these small operators, even with today's depressed prices, have still been successful, especially those who concentrate their business on a selected area of the market. We have heard of the experience of plants specializing in lobsters or scallops, for instance.
I believe that the fears voiced by these people are fully justified. 1 have had some experience with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. The experience we have had in the West and the North is that when the Government first comes in, it is not satisfied until it gets full control of the market. It keeps getting a little bit more and a little bit more control until it ends up with a full and complete monopoly. All of the small fish buyers in my constituency were swallowed up by this Crown corporation and the industry has been nationalized. The fisherman has no alternative but to sell his product to the nationalized company at the prices it dictates. There is no freedom left in the industry.
If the Liberals stay in office in this country, and I do not believe there is much of a possibility for that to happen, then I am sure that what has happened with the FFMC would also happen on the East Coast. This, Sir, is feared by many, including myself, as being the first step in a wholesale nationalization of the East Coast industry. If 1 have time, toward the end of my presentation I will make suggestions for possible amendments to the Bill which would see that these worst fears will not be realized.
As well, Sir, judging by the experience 1 have had with the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation, I can guarantee that nobody but nobody is worse at selling fish than those in the Government. Bureaucrats simply cannot sell fish. They are not equipped to sell fish. There is no way that they can sell fish.
There was once a viable industry in the Slave Lake area of my constituency. People went fishing in that lake and in the inland lakes nearby with the idea that they could make money, and they usually did. However, since the Government took the industry over, there is no longer a viable industry. It is entirely dependent upon subsidies. If those subsidies were to be taken away, the industry would die overnight. It is more like a welfare system than it is like a living industry at the present time. I would not want to see that happen to our friends on the East Coast of Canada.
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
The plan that is now before us was described by the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) as being the lesser of many evils, and I am inclined toward that way of thinking. If we must accept that plan, then let us examine the Bill to see if it does what the Government says it is designed to do or if it can be improved. My first observation is that this is a typical Liberal Bill. It is designed to grant the Government wide-sweeping powers. The Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) spoke about these powers in a great deal of detail so I will not repeat what he said.
The Bill seeks to give the Government virtually carte blanche authority to do anything the Government wants with the East Coast fishery industry. Not only that, Sir, the Bill goes on forever and ever. The authority that the Government is seeking from Parliament never comes to an end but goes on forever. The Government says it needs extraordinary powers in order to reorganize the fisheries at the present time, but this Bill would give the Government those powers forever. The Government would have those powers not simply in the case of the present emergency but forever and ever. 1 think that that is unacceptable.
This Bill needs a very critical examination in committee. For instance, Subclause 8(1) gives the Government authority to invest up to $138 million until March 31, 1985. However, if we look at Subclause (2), we will find that there is no limit in the future. The Government can go through the normal Appropriation Act procedure whereby that Act is deemed to have been approved even if we do not debate it in the House for five minutes. So there is no real control over those appropriations. Government can come back in 1986 and put $300 million into it, and the following year a billion dollars, and there is nothing that Parliament can do.
I believe there has to be within this Bill a guaranteed maximum spending limit so that if the Government wants to exceed that, it has to come back to Parliament. I am pleased to see there is a limit on the amount of guarantees it can make. However, in my opinion, a limit should certainly be there in respect of the amount of cash it can spend and invest. To assuage the fear of back door nationalization, which has been spelled out by those Members who represent the smaller aspect of the industry, there should be within this Bill a specified limit of Government participation in any one of these entities which they intend to create.
My last point is that if we look at the Bill in its present form, it is like a lobster trap. We can get into it very easily, Sir, but it is going to be very difficult ever to get out unless we make the necessary amendments. There must be a way specified within the Bill as to the way it will end and the way we can get the East Coast fishing industry back into private hands where it really belongs. I would foresee a schedule laid out in the Act where the maximum participation which I mentioned previously would decline over a number of years. There would be a declining maximum participation specified over a period of a number of years.

November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
Most important, there must be a termination date as to when the authority, which the Government is asking be granted to it by Parliament, comes to an end. By that date, the Government should make sure that the industry is returned to private hands and that the state no longer has an equity position in the East Coast fishery.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could say right away that I find it very ironic that what we are really faced with here is a Bill which nationalizes a very troubled East Coast fishing industry, at least the major part of the industry, creating the largest fish company in the world out of the rubble of the Nickerson National Sea empire. This is done by a Liberal Minister and that famous or infamous wheeler-dealer, Mr. Michael Kirby, and by two Conservative Premiers in Nova Scotia and in Newfoundland, and which is supported in the House today by the Conservative Party. I find it ironic because if we in the New Democratic Party were to do that, we would be condemned for being nasty socialists who were nationalizing a troubled company. Yet here are all these Hon. Members supporting this Bill.
1 believe the Bill is a good idea and 1 am going to say something about that in my remarks. However, I want to say right away, Mr. Speaker, that, as the last speaker admitted at the beginning of his speech, 1 also am not an expert on fish. I am a long way away from being an expert in the fisheries. As a matter of fact, my riding is probably the only riding in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia which does not front on the ocean. However, 1 did want to say a few words today because 1 am very sympathetic to the Atlantic Canada region.
I find certain similarities with my area of the country, namely, British Columbia. It is a region where one industry dominates, as in our part of the country where we have the forest and mining industries.
1 can sympathize with the people of Atlantic Canada who, I am told, out of a population of two million, have about 100,000 directly employed in the fishing industry. Of course, many other people are employed as a result of spin-offs from the fishing industry. If you consider that there are nine million people in Ontario and about 75,000 are auto workers, which is one of the major industries in Ontario, you can understand how important the fishing industry is in terms of people being employed in Atlantic Canada. There is an additional problem in Atlantic Canada. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at the eastern seaboard of the United States, you find that people who are fishing there, when fishing is difficult, can always quit and go and work in manufacturing, then come back to the fishery a few years later. You cannot do that in Atlantic Canada because of the general economy there and the lack of a manufacturing base. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I understand that when you close a fish plant, just as when you close a mine or a pulp mill in British Columbia, it means a death sentence to a community.
I would like to ask why the fishing industry is in trouble. Why is it-if you will pardon the pun-floundering on a sea of red ink? I feel there are a number of reasons and I would like to go through them. I think there were tremendous expectations which came about because of the extension of the 200-mile limit. The result was overcapitalization in the industry. Another reason was the recession of 1980 which resulted in fewer products being sold and in lower prices to the fishermen. Therefore, there was a decline in sales and a decline in prices. 1 believe also that part of it was due to a management position to expand even at the beginning of tough times. Perhaps the reason was over-optimism, furthered by the hope of getting Government grants and so on.
The Liberal Government must bear some of the responsibilities for the difficulty in the industry, and the Conservative Government before it, because both the Clark Conservative Government and the present Liberal Government favoured high interest rates and monetarist policies.


John Leslie Evans: Come on.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Hon. Member says, "Come on". I ask him to look at the interest rates in this country in the last three years.


John Leslie Evans: Look at the height of the sky also.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: These high interest rates brought on by the Liberal Government, and the body which it controls, namely, the Bank of Canada, through its appointment of the Governor of the Bank of Canada, really squeezed out any hope that these fishing companies could make a go of it. So while some fishermen could even double their catch, they were tripling their debts and, as you know, Mr. Speaker, you cannot survive if you do that.
I would like to quote from some remarks which were made in this House by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Nanai-mo-Alberni (Mr. Miller), who is the fisheries critic for our Party. I quote as follows from page 28,858 of Hansard for November 14, 1983:
Companies had paid little enough attention to increasing the quality of their catch or improving their marketing strategies. This led to a decline in the ability to sell fish and the ability to support the economics of the industry.
What happened then was that the industry in fact collapsed. We then saw a deal between the present Fisheries Ministry, the Premier of Nova Scotia and the Premier of Newfoundland. That odd couple, Ottawa and Newfoundland, finally got together to deal with the fisheries industry. As I understand the Bill, it provides authority for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to spend $138 million to restructure the groundfish processing sector in eastern Canada. This restructuring is based, as I said, on two agreements, one with Newfoundland and one with Nova Scotia. This will see the creation of two new super companies, the largest in the world, from the dregs of the five major and a few smaller processors. I do not think my colleague was here at the time, but I said that I find it ironic that this is nationalization of part of the
November 18, 1983

industry and while the Conservatives and Liberals are scampering not to say that, they are still supporting it.
The federal Government is going to inject $138 million in cash and hold the majority of shares in each company. The provincial Governments and the Bank of Nova Scotia, by converting debt into equity, will hold minority shareholder positions. Not bad for the Bank of Nova Scotia. Perhaps it gets rid of that tremendous debt on its fisheries account. The Nova Scotia agreement is not completely finalized, but in the Newfoundland agreement there is a potential for employee ownership and a seat for the union on the board of directors. Can you believe it? We might even be getting a little bit of progressive legislation. We might be able to get some legislation where employees of the company will start feeling they are really part of the whole process and will become more productive. That of course is the way to productivity, not by beating them over the head as the Conservative-Social Credit Government of British Columbia tends to do.
We in the NDP will be supporting the Bill, as I gather you have surmised, despite some of the shortcomings which 1 want to go into in a couple of minutes. There is no doubt that some form of intervention was necessary. As 1 said, many smaller communities in eastern Canada are completely reliant on the continued operation of the plants and related fishing activities. We do not see any viable alternative at this particular time. There is some necessity for getting this restructuring in place very soon, before the next fishing season, because sales contracts and renegotiation of the union contract are pending. 1 want to again quote our fisheries critic from his opening speech at page 28858 of Hansard where he said:
It is necessary to proceed with this Bill because the future of the next fishing season in Atlantic Canada relies on it. If this Bill is not passed, if there is not a restructuring of the industry and if a board of directors is not appointed to the new companies in Atlantic Canada, there will be a great deal of uncertainty about markets and our ability to sell the product that is harvested over the next year. As well, the matter of negotiations between the fishermen's unions and the company for contracts in Atlantic Canada depends upon this Bill and suppliers must know whether the debts that are owed to them at the moment will be repaid. There are a great many other uncertainties in almost every community in Atlantic Canada and hundreds and hundreds of those communities are dependent upon the fishing industry.
That is all the more reason why the Bill should go to committee.
1 gather, in following the debate, that the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) brought up the problem of smaller companies which are not included in this deal. I acknowledge that they need some assurance from the Government that they will not be forced out of business. Even a rampant socialist like myself can say that. There also needs to be some concerns about selling off the companies to foreign owners and so on. 1 also think we should not be in any hurry. 1 notice various speakers have talked about this hurry to have the Government bail out the industry, get it going again and then sell it out to private enterprise. If these big companies work, and if the workers in this industry can really feel they are part of the whole thing, that it is not "them and us", it is all "us" in these
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act two large companies, then I would think we would want to continue with these companies. But that is looking into the future and that is difficult to do.
Before I sit down I do want to look into the future at one aspect. We all know Michael Kirby; he is a man who, I suppose, has made as many enemies in Atlantic Canada as he has made deals. But he is to be, if not congratulated, at least we will acknowledge his hard work and sincerity in getting these deals together. It is obviously a lot of hard work because there must be a minefield of competing interests in this area. However, I would like to caution the Government that, when it comes to dealing with the West Coast industry, and the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni and the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) are much more expert on that industry than 1 am, the Government should be very careful in the way it treats the West Coast industry. It is a different kind of industry. If there is to be restructuring there, I ask the Government to do it openly with as much consultation as possible. Put everything on the table, because that is the way to negotiate. 1 would not want to repeat the spectre of the Crow in the sense of Ottawa taking the position, as viewed from western eyes, that Ottawa knows best and therefore we will force whatever restructuring we think the industry needs. I have my nose to the wind and I understand that there are some things about to happen to the industry on the West Coast, perhaps the purchasing of companies and so on, but I just say to the Government that it should be open and above-board and that there should be much consultation.
I think I have touched on all the areas I wanted to. I think the detail can be done in committee, where I hope the Bill will go soon. As someone who lives a long way from Atlantic Canada but who has a great deal of sympathy with what the people there are trying to do and what they are going through in the fishing industry, I wish them luck. They are going to need it. I wish them a future in a really viable industry. While there are problems, 1 think the Bill really sets the basis for doing that. It really is quite a unique opportunity for fishermen in the Provinces of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to take from this dead, bankrupt industry and build something which can be really viable. All Canadians can be proud of a real working industry there.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I know it is late on a Friday afternoon and perhaps everything that can be said about this Bill on second reading has been said, but I would like to add my comments to what Hon. Members have said in this Chamber.
First of all, there must be an absolutely clear understanding that this Bill must be accepted, perhaps reluctantly, by this House because the Government has put forward nothing else to meet a crisis which has continued now since at least the summer of 1981, and to which the Government has not made any adequate response. This is not to say that this Bill is a perfect Bill. Because the Government waited so long to act, the Bill amounts to a piece of enabling legislation to put into effect one agreement that has been entered into between the federal Government and the Province of Newfoundland and to give

November IB, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act power to implement another agreement which the federal Government hopes to enter into with the Province of Nova Scotia. It also enables the Government to establish a huge national fishing corporation. The bulk of the power to make decisions will rest with the Government, not only because of the structure of that fishing corporation, but because the Government already regulates and controls the resource to which all of the user groups of Atlantic Canada must resort. That is the fishery. The consequence of this is an establishment of immense state power. It is done in response to a crisis. The tragedy is that it is done in response to a crisis for which the Federal Government must take responsibility to a significant extent.
During the summer of 1981 my colleague, the former Minister of Fisheries, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), was warning the Government that action was required. At that time it was quite clear that the companies were not going to be able to carry on for two reasons. The first reason was the difficulty because of markets. The second reason was over-expansion and the extreme difficulty in carrying the loans as a consequence of high interest rates. Those interest rates continued to go up. Those companies and the banks which had made loans to them were in a position where they could not get sufficient cash flow to get out of the difficulties.
During the 1980 elections the Hon. Member who is now the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Gray) said that he would resign rather than belong to a Government that did not bring interest rates down. Tell that to the people in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. McGrath:: They were 14 per cent then.


John Allen Fraser: At that time they were 14 per cent, as my hon. colleague points out.


An Hon. Member:: And went up to 24 per cent.


John Allen Fraser: And went up to 24, as another hon. colleague points out. I am sure if 1 stand here for a few minutes, other rates will come to mind. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the situation in Atlantic Canada was clearly visible in the summer of 1981. All during that autumn, questions were asked in the House repeatedly. There was a special debate. The Minister of Fisheries at the time kept saying that the situation was not too severe. He was trying to get away from the responsibility that the Government of Canada held by saying it was the fault of the companies, they should not have built so many processing plants. In one speech he said that he had warned the corporations and companies, both large and small. While he was giving the warnings, the Department of Economic Expansion was putting up the money and practically forcing the industry to build the processing plants. The Government of Canada is the Government that controls the fishery and regulates its catch and allotments. It intervenes, and not always to good effect, into the fishery. The result of delay between 1981
and now resulted in a frantic attempt to be seen to be doing something.
In January of 1982 I was in St. John's, Newfoundland. I was asked what the Conservative Government would do if it were in power then. I said that the Atlantic fishery needed then an immediate influx, either through guarantees, loans or some other mechanism, of $100 million to stabilize the industry and to save the industry and the private sector in the industry. Mr. Kirby laughed. He said my figures were excessive. The then Minister of Fisheries laughed and said they had nothing like that amount in mind. Mr. Speaker, this Bill starts off with $138 million. It carries on to guarantees of $100 million. That does not even begin to count the money that has been committed to the Atlantic fishery as a consequence of the Kirby Report some months ago.


An Hon. Member:: Fleet replacement.


John Allen Fraser: Fleet replacement and other things, as is properly pointed out by my hon. friend. Mr. Speaker, in the first week in January of 1982 we, who had an answer that would have retained a viable private fishing industry, were laughed at. We were told they were not even thinking of $100 million. If the Government had acted then there would have been no need for this particular Bill.


Mr. Pepin:: Why didn't you act?


John Allen Fraser: As my hon. friend on the Liberal side of the House knows, in January of 1982 we were not the Government. He represented the Government and sat on the Treasury benches. The question is why he and his colleagues did not act. We could not act. The power in this House lay with the Government.
The Hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) yesterday said: "There is no need for such a Bill". He was referring to this particular Bill. 1 agree there is no need for this particular Bill, but because of the neglect of his own Government there is need for a Bill. As 1 said at the beginning, we must, with reluctance, accept the passage of this Bill.
My hon. friend, the Liberal Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell) is from a part of Nova Scotia that understands well the difficulties of and also the opportunities for the Atlantic fishery. She said: "Certainly my constituents feel it will affect them, and they want more information . . . The powers the Bill gives to the Minister seem to be unlimited."
It is all very well for my hon. socialist friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), to offer some caveats about the power in this Bill. It is understandable that he does so. While he wants to endorse nationalization, even he understands that the powers in this Bill are quite extraordinary. The Bill, in Clause 4, says the power is:
To carry out the purpose of this Act, the minister may, on behalf of Her Majesty,
(a) acquire, hold or dispose of or otherwise deal with shares, debentures or
other securities of, or any security interest in, any fishery enterprise;
November 18, 1983

This Bill is a Bill to execute and implement one agreement and another that is hoped to be signed by the Government. The Bill does not confine itself just to the subject of the agreements, which are not mentioned in the Bill. It gives power to do these things with other fishery companies which may well not be in financial difficulty at the moment and which we can call the independents. Because of the neglect of the Government over a long period of time something had to be done. The people in Atlantic Canada cannot be thrown out of work completely. Their means of making a living cannot just disintegrate as a consequence of this neglect.
But there is another section of the Atlantic fishery of which other Hon. Members, especially on the Government side, have spoken. That sector views this piece of legislation with concern. They do not want to see fellow fishermen thrown out of work and do not want to see a large part of the Atlantic fishery collapse. They do not want to see it forced to go through a painful process of re-establishment.
They also do not want their viable, effective and competent part of the industry to go under, which is a concern of theirs over the sweeping powers of this Bill. My hon. friend from the NDP commented on this a few minutes ago. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway said that some form of intervention was necessary. I understand that, because I am aware of the political ideology which lies behind that statement. However, even he recognized the concern of the independents. He said, "They need some assurance that they will not be forced out of business". This matter has not only been raised by my colleagues from the NDP who are the advocates of nationalization and socialization but also by my colleagues on the Government side. While they are perhaps more content with intervention and nationalization than some others in the House, they too have raised the concern of fellow fishermen in Atlantic Canada about the extraordinarily immense power of this particular Bill. They have commented that for all practical purposes there is no accountability. While the Hon. Minister can argue that parliamentary approval is required in order to get additional sums, we know that that is not the kind of accountability that is required. What is required is a constant reporting mechanism to the House.
Hon. Members on the Government side also know that the independents in their part of Atlantic Canada are getting clear signals from the banks and the investment community that there will be a diminution of the necessary funds for them to carry on and plan their business affairs until there is a more clear idea of what kind of power might be exercised under this Act.
Since this alarm has been raised by all Members of the House-1 fully compliment my friends on the Liberal side for having the good sense to recognize it for what it is-I hope that those Members from Atlantic Canada on the Government
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
side will come forward at committee stage and assist us in bringing forward some witnesses who will be able to help us perhaps in making amendments which might be necessary to alleviate that concern. I also hope that all Members of the House will address themselves to the question of accountability-
There is another side to this legislation. It is the intention of the Government eventually to reprivatize the capital assets and corporate structure that will be taken over by the Government, at least in the initial stage. It is terribly important that if there is to be any capacity to reprivatize, the independent sector of the Atlantic fishery must not become so frightened or concerned that it ceases to have economic viability to be in a position to help the Government in its stated objectives of reprivatization. Those of us who have put many long days and weeks into the study of the Atlantic fishery and have spoken here on many occasions in support of a viable and effective Atlantic fishery want to be assured that there will be an honest expression of intention made very clear during the committee and further stages of this Bill. We want to be clear that the objective is indeed to withdraw Government intervention as soon as possible.
I think it has been made very clear from the debate so far that all Members of the House, for different reasons, understand that this Bill must now be accepted. I also believe that all Members understand there are some problems with the Bill. For instance, the Hon. Member for Gloucester believes that this Bill should not have been necessary. Although he says it is not necessary now, I believe it is. Perhaps the Bill could be in another form, but something must be done. We do not believe that the situation had to develop to this point but it has, and on behalf of my Party we are saying to all people involved in the Atlantic fishery that we know the Bill must now be accepted and we will do nothing to prevent the Government from doing those things that must be done now to maintain employment and some kind of viability in the Atlantic fishery.
But we must also say to others in Atlantic Canada that we are very conscious indeed that this Bill must be watched carefully. The powers contained in it must be constrained to meet the Government's stated objective eventually to withdraw and allow the Altantic fishery to carry on in a viable and healthy way with as much private initiative as possible.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is a disposition that we put the question at the second reading on this Bill. Perhaps subsequent to putting the question, we might call it five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
29004
[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has suggested that there may be a disposition that the Chair should see the clock as five o'clock. Is that agreed?
Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Agreed and so ordered. It being five o'clock 1 do now leave the chair until eleven o'clock Monday morning.
At 4 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 21, 1983