1984-02-03

ANNIVERSARY OF 1916 FIRE-SIGNIFICANCE OF MACE

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members will notice at once today that the mace in use is not the one ordinarily resting upon the table. The reason is that we are resuming a tradition which goes back to the time of the fire in this House 68 years ago today. The mace now on the table was crafted after the fire of 1916 so that Parliament could continue to sit, the mace as well as the Chamber having been destroyed in the fire 68 years ago today. This mace was crafted so that the Parliament of Canada could sit elsewhere while this Chamber was being restored. That took some four years.
During the tenure of Mr. Speaker Mitchener in particular, the mace was used on the anniversary of that fire. We have continued to observe that practice as a memory of what took place on that occasion in 1916.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, this country's respect for the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals is the highest in the world. The recent return of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) from behind the Iron Curtain gives us cause to reflect once more upon recognition and respect for human rights within those countries.
Continuously since 1944 Moscow has been realizing the systematic destruction of the Baltic States. It goes beyond just political repression. There is the unremitting, harsh censorship of literature and the arts. There is the gradual elimination of language and tradition. There is, in fact, a forced assimilation.
The Solidarity movement in Poland is a fine example to the world of a people's peaceful resistance to a political regime. It was stamped out by martial law. Four members of the Workers' Defence Committee, commonly known as KOR, and an advisory group to Solidarity, were arrested in September,
1982. KOR was founded as a way of protest against a steep rise in prices of food and consumer goods. KOR never engaged in clandestine activities, military or anti-military activities, yet these four are charged with an attempt to overthrow the Polish Peoples Republic and with weakening the defence capability of that state.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, today I rise more in sadness and sorrow than in anger.


Mr. Waddell:: Why? Is John Turner not going to run again?


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The NDP will get theirs if they will just listen. I refer to an article entitled "NDP Blocking Book Plans", an article which outlines how the report "Taking Stock, A Report to the NDP Federal Caucus on NDP Economic Policy", by the renowned scholar and NDP thinker, James Laxer, has been barred from publication by the NDP.
I recall a short two years ago when we stood shoulder to shoulder with the NDP in terms of asserting the fundamental need for Canadians to have rights, the rights of freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom of the press. But I can perhaps understand why the NDP does not want to see this report published. For example, Laxer says that the Party's policies are seriously inadequate, contradictory, shortsighted, ideological, and ambivalent.
I quote:
The NDP's analysis of economic and social evolution remains locked in the 1950s and 1960s where it had its origins, wrote Laxer.
It is a sad day when Canadians cannot see the full extent of this publication. Now I can understand perhaps why the Tories-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member's time has expired.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, it's that time of the month again when those unemployed people in Canada become numbers on a sheet of paper, seasonally adjusted and categorized, and it is not a pretty

February 3, 1984
picture. These facts should cause very real concern to all parliamentarians, especially the Government.
Unemployment is up to 11.2 per cent, 1,476,000. There were 47,000 jobs lost in the last month alone, and there are 31,000 less employed in Ontario. What jobs are disappearing? Construction and manufacturing. There are 14,000 less jobs in manufacturing, most of which are in Ontario.
The Finance Minister's budget of February 15 must address the problems being faced by the industrial sector. It is an area where meaningful, full-time employment creation can and must take place. I urge the Minister to give special attention to this area of the economy. It is a national disgrace that Canada's unemployment rate is rising at a time when the rate of our neighbour to the south and the rates of other industrial countries' are declining.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are continually concerned with the destructive effects that the increasing militarization in Central America is having on the development process, and consequently on the people in that region. All countries must accept a pluralistic Central America in which there is co-existence between states of different political and economic ideologies.
Attempts to solve Central American problems by military force should be stopped immediately. A greater commitment to a negotiated settlement through the Contadora process should begin. Canadians can help achieve these goals by supporting the Contadora Group more actively at the United Nations and in other international bodies, especially the aid agencies and financial institutions.
In addition, Canada should do everything possible to ease tensions in the region by opening an embassy in Nicaragua. This move is essential if Canada is to have a more effective listening post in Central America so that we can better distinguish the true situation in the region.


Mr. Stevens:: No way.


Stanley Hudecki: At the present time the Canadian Ambassador to Nicaragua is resident in Costa Rica and is responsible for Costa Rica, Panama, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Canadians are being represented in an emergency by the U.S. Embassy in Nicaragua.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Leave him there. I am surprised at you.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the official figures on unemployment sketch a tragic picture in spite of government talk about any so-called economic recovery. While bank and corporation profits recover, unemployment rates have soared; 150,000 more people were officially unemployed in January than December. The rate for young people rose a full 2 per cent, and now more than one in five of our youth is officially unemployed.
No wonder our new Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Hervieux-Payette) talks about young people rioting in the streets. But what is the Minister or her Government doing? The official rates are bad enough, but they do not tell the entire story. In my riding and others many unemployed young people cannot even be referred for Canada Works projects because they are not officially attached to the labour force. They are not attached to the labour force because they have never had a job. They cannot get a job on a Canada Works project because they are not attached to the labour force. The Government must end this tragic "catch-22" and at least ensure that Canada Works guidelines do not discriminate against young people looking for their first job.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is back. When he walked in, it just occurred to me that I could extemporize a bit and let him know what is going on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Prime Minister will be interested to know that Senator Keith Davey gave a dog and pony presentation to the Liberal caucus this week to convince the one or two doubting members who still have questions concerning the continuation of the present leadership of the Party that the Prime Minister should stay. After this caucus, Canadians watching the evening news saw grim-faced Liberal Members leaving the caucus room. Now any presentation promoting the Prime Minister to stay on for one more go, complete with slides and charts, should not be limited to a small group, including a few malcontents who obviously do not have any sense of humour. Indeed, I think on the basis of the subject itself, Senator Davey may qualify for the annual Leacock award for humour. Why should Canadians not have an opportunity to have a big belly laugh?
I call on Senator Davey to make public his presentation immediately because, even though it may make a certain Bay Street lawyer blanch, I think it will provide hilarity to the vast majority of the Canadian people.
February 3, 1984



CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to refer to a case that has arisen in my riding. A guild of rosary makers composed of senior citizens has been assembling rosaries for religious purposes. These rosaries are distributed free to school children and to missions abroad. Until recently the materials used in the assembly of the rosaries had been passed into Canada by Canada Customs free of duty and sales tax. Recently I received a letter from a member of the guild who states that last November it was advised that, with the exception of the crucifixes and centres, all of these materials could be used for other purposes and were therefore liable for duty and tax. He went on to point out that, while they could be, they are not.
I call upon the Minister of National Revenue to investigate this case immediately. It seems to me that if a religious order, no matter what denomination, is able to prove that it is using materials for religious purposes, that surely is the test, not whatever other purposes they could be used for. I call on the Minister of National Revenue to look into this matter.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that 12 days ago he told Canadians and this House that unemployment had been reduced to less than 10 per cent. He went on to say, and I quote: "It is obvious unemployment is coming down". Given the fact that this morning Statistics Canada told us that unemployment is going up, I wonder if the Prime Minister could apologize to the House for that prediction and if he could tell us what changes in direction are indicated, given the fact that unemployment is in fact going up.
Can we expect changes in policy to stimulate jobs in the private sector, changes in policy in the public sector or, if we really get lucky, the resignation of the Minister of Finance? Which of these changes does the Prime Minister think is indicated in order to get Canadians working again?


Mr. Crosbie:: Or the resignation of the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the budget date has been announced and it is less than two weeks away. The Hon. Member is asking me to speculate on its contents. He would know that that would not be my practice.
Oral Questions


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I think we feel a sense of panic on this side of the House, that the Budget is coming down and we have the same Finance Minister.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATES IN CANADA AND UNITED STATES
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's briefing notes were obviously in error. Just two days ago the Minister of Finance gave us some of his assumptions. My question relates to the assumptions, that he is using. He told us that we were slightly behind the United States in terms of our recovery. In the United States employment has been going up for six months in a row; in Canada in the last four months unemployment has been going up-in fact it has been going up for six months in a row. The number of jobs has been going down. If the Minister of Finance intends to bring in policies predicated on that assumption, he is dead wrong.
Could the Prime Minister tell us that we can expect a change in policy that will take some of the misery out of the minds, hearts, and souls of the 1.5 million unemployed people in this country? Can we at least have an assurance that we will get some different direction that will get Canadians working again? That is all we want.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member complains about his and his Party's sense of panic. That is not my problem; that is his problem. Probably they are panicked because the last budget the Minister of Finance brought down was such a successful one.


John Horton McDermid: We have seen the results.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was accepted as being the right kind of budget by every impartial commentator in the country. That excludes the Hon. Member and his Party, of course. It put forward some $4.8 billion in job creation and infrastructure creation terms. It created jobs in this country on a year to year basis at a higher rate than any other industrialized country. I can understand the panic, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let's get the Romanians to help.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: We simply reflect the sense of panic of the 1.5 million unemployed in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT GENERAL ELECTION BE CALLED
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will recall that four years ago on January 12, 1980, in Toronto he said:
The Conservatives plan to increase unemployment by 100,000; Liberals will fight to lower it.
Today, four years later, we have 514,000 more people unemployed than we had at the time the Prime Minister made that speech. Could he indicate to the House whether, in the interest of providing hope to Canadians, we can expect the

February 3, 1984
Oral Questions
public dialogue that becomes the focus of a general election campaign? Can we have an election soon if we are not going to get a change of policy, so that Canadians can decide whether they need a change of policy? I think they do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 
THE ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who, you will recall, last Wednesday stated in this House that the Canadian record with respect to the economy is very comparable to that of the United States. Has the Minister recently reviewed OECD figures which show that Canada in fact fell into the recession prior to the United States, fell further, has had higher inflation, yet less real growth, higher unemployment, yet greater relative federal deficits than the United States? If the Minister is aware of those figures, will he explain to this House why he consistently continues to misrepresent the facts? Can he not distinguish facts from pure fantasy?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, indeed the Canadian economy has known a deeper recession than that of the United States. I have recognized that fact all along. I have also indicated, however, a number of figures have shown that Canada had known a larger improvement last year than most other economies, including that of the United States.
Figures will change as months go by when you make such comparisons, but I remind my hon. friend that for the first three quarters of 1983, for instance, growth in Canada was higher than in the United States. If one looks at the provisional figures for the whole year in terms of employment growth, for instance, one will find that in the first ten months of 1983 employment growth in Canada was higher than in the United States, but then was lower in the last two months. If one takes the full year, one arrives at the equivalent levels of growth of about 3.8 per cent. Therefore, the economies in Canada and the United States are moving very much in the same direction at the present time. We have known a deeper recession, it is true. I have always recognized that. And I am confident, as the OECD has predicted for 1984, that Canada will know a very good year, as a matter of fact a year which compares favourably with any other country. I refer my hon. friend to the most recent report of the OECD in that regard.


PRIME MINISTER'S 1980STATEMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my question to the Prime Minister, who has just heard his Minister of Finance admit that our recession was more serious than that of the United States. Yet the Prime Minister said this morning that the last Budget was such a success. Would the Prime Minister now admit that while he has been contemplating what he called his "complex destiny" overseas-


John Carnell Crosbie: He has a complex all right.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -there are 500,000 Canadians who are out of work today over and above the number who were out of work in January, 1980, when he made the famous statement that he would fight to lower unemployment in this country-which is a tragedy for this nation-and that, indeed, he has lost that fight which he promised the Canadian public he would make during the last election?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member is suggesting that I did not win the fight to keep the economy growing in the first part of the 1980s as well as we did in the 1970s, that is true. That is what the Minister has just repeated. We have had a recession. I would just like to point out to the Hon. member that the OECD countries have more than 30 million unemployed. That is a very considerable increase over what they had in 1980.
The recession has been world-wide. It still is, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why are the Americans doing better?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the Hon. Member would go overseas he would see that there is a lot of unemployed over there, and that this Government is doing better in correcting the unemployment problem than they are.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How about the United States?


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance, who was going on this morning just as he has for the past weeks and months, talking about a recovery. For months now the Government has thrown literally hundreds of millions of dollars of the taxpayers' money at corporations on the promise that jobs would be created. I say to the Minister that the 1.5 million unemployed announced today are the best evidence possible that the Government has blown it. It does not know what it is doing in the economy. Will the Minister tell us today and, through us, the unemployed in British Columbia, Newfoundland, Ontario anywhere in this country-what they are to do for a job prospect next week?
February 3, 1984


Mr. MacBain:: Start by giving James Laxer back his job, Ed.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously no one would take comfort from any increase in the number of unemployed in Canada, which I have always said is too large. However, I have also indicated that this question of unemployment, which is a very troublesome one, and one which we should address with all our strength and determination, will not be resolved in a matter of weeks. It has to be addressed systematically and this will be done fundamentally by ensuring that our economy is going to grow. As the Prime Minister has said, there are over 30 million unemployed in the OECD countries at the present time, and, contrary to what the Hon. Member for St. John's West said, the U.K. has not done better than Canada; its unemployment level today is higher than it is in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: With a Tory Government.


Marc Lalonde: I would like to point out to my hon. friend that since this time last year we have, nonetheless, created in Canada 310,000 jobs that we did not have. So there have been significant improvements in job creation in the last year. Contrary to what my friend has said, there has been job creation in this country; not as fast as I would have wished, and I am sure not as fast as every Member in this House and every Canadian would have wished. But the fact is that jobs will have to be created fundamentally in the private sector. It is not the federal or provincial or municipal Governments which by themselves are going to create all the jobs needed in Canada. This is why we must have a vigorous private sector which will create the steady, well-paying jobs to which Canadians are entitled.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns I'idee fixe of the Government, a single economic policy. I want to put it fairly, and I hope the Minister responds to the question and does not go off on a tangent.
The Minister has said that the more than $2 billion in tax cuts in different forms he has given to corporations, through more than 200 loopholes in the tax system, would have a trickle down effect and create jobs. Well, investment was down, not up, in 1983. The forecast for 1984 and 1985 is down, not up. At the same time these same corporations have indulged in a record number of mergers and invested more than $2 billion outside Canada in the past year. Will the Minister tell the House if he has a single mechanism attached to these corporate tax cuts that guarantees this money will create jobs in Canada?
Oral Questions


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will take the recommendations of the Hon. Member as a representation. I would like to add that, if it is true that Canadian firms have invested abroad, it is also true that a large number of foreign firms have invested in Canada. If he looks at what has happened-


John Edward Broadbent: Investment is down, not up.


Marc Lalonde: -in terms of net flow of foreign investment in this country, I believe more money came into Canada last year than went out. As far as the projections for investment this year and next year are concerned, I will be in a position to address this particular issue at the time of the Budget, and my hon. friend will have an opportunity to examine those particular forecasts.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, for the million and one half unemployed it is a little late for the Minister to start listening now. If he had listened to some of the suggestions we were making six months ago on this matter, maybe we would have more jobs now instead of unemployment up 150,000 in one month.


ACQUISITION OF UNITED STATES BANK BY BANK OF MONTREAL
John Edward Broadbent: My supplementary question to the Minister specifically concerns one of these corporations. The Bank of Montreal paid no taxes in 1982. In fact it got a tax credit from the Government. During that period of time the same bank invested $673 million in the United States to take over the Harris Bank Corporation. The Government is giving the taxpayers' money to one of the largest Canadian banks, which uses that money to buy up another bank in the United States. Will the Minister explain to the unemployed in Canada today what that kind of give away of taxpayers' money did to create a single Canadian job?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend that the Government has put more money than ever in the history of any federal Government into direct job creation, either through job creation by the Department of Employment and Immigration or through the Special Capital Recovery Projects.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: We have addressed this issue ourselves through direct spending by the federal Government, not only spending by the private sector.


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question.


Marc Lalonde: I would be very pleased to answer the question if my hon. friend would limit his questions to specific points. He always makes long introductions. I am going to address every point he has made in his introduction which is not correct. He refers, for instance, to the recommendations of the

February 3, 1984
Oral Questions
NDP last year. They were recommending us to do as the French Government has done. Last month unemployment in France went up rather than going down.
In regard to the specific point raised by my hon. friend concerning the Bank of Montreal, I raised this matter with the President of the Bank of Montreal at the time they were entering this purchase of an American bank. I was assured that the funds used for this purpose came out of money they had earned in the United States and they would not use any revenues coming out of their Canadian operations for that purpose.


An Hon. Member:: And you believed him.


Marc Lalonde: These were funds that had been earned in the United States and were used to make a purchase in the United States.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I would like to quote to him from a speech that the Prime Minister made in January, 1980, at the University of New Brunswick. The Prime Minister said:
As we enter the 1980s, we have to remind ourselves that there is no greater challenge facing this country than that fundamental requirement of creating jobs, especially for Canada's young people.
When the Government returned to office there were 312,000 more young people with jobs than there are today. How does the Government account for this complete failure?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do agree with the Prime Minister's comments as quoted. I disagree with the hon. gentleman that there has been a failure in this regard. While I do not take much heart from it, the fact is that in the last month youth unemployment declined rather than increased.
At the time of the Speech from the Throne the Government announced a variety of measures, including the addition of well over a quarter of a billion dollars of new funding directed to providing increased job opportunities and enhancing training opportunities for young people. There are a variety of other steps the Government has taken, notably the appointment of my colleague, the Minister for Youth. In a variety of ways the federal Government is focusing on and tackling the problem of youth unemployment. We have established a youth opportunity fund of well over $ 1 billion to be focused on these efforts. At the present time the Government of Canada is spending roughly $2.5 million a day to assist young people who face problems in obtaining employment in our society.


TAX CREDITS URGED FOR EMPLOYERS
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. There are 370,000 fewer young people employed in Canada today. That is a failure by anybody's measure. Many of those jobs were lost in Ontario. Will the Government give consideration to a greater emphasis on employment programs which will lower the cost to employers who hire young people rather than these grandiose schemes? Will the Government put greater emphasis on plans for employers who will hire young people through tax credits, and thus get at the real source of the problem in Canada today?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has just displayed his rather tenuous knowledge of what in fact is being done. We instituted the Career Access Program last September. At the time of the Speech from the Throne we doubled the funding for that. There are hundreds of millions of dollars which are flowing into exactly that kind of program. I can tell the Hon. Member that it is working.
The Hon. Member suggests that we should look at tax deductions to achieve that purpose. We have looked at that, and I have explained several times to Members of the Opposition in the House that that is a less effective way of proceeding than the one we are following. It is less effective because it means that the benefit to the employer flows to him a year late when the tax return is done. A subsidy to the employer is much more stimulating, and this is exactly how the Career Access Program works. It contributes a subsidy of up to 50 per cent of the wage of a young person for up to six or 12 months. Since that flows directly and immediately into the employer's hands, it is much more successful in stimulating employment than the policy to which his opposition Party seems to be attached, which is that of encouraging businesses through the tax credit system. That is simply less effective than the procedure we are using at the present time.


FISHERIES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and relates to jobs. At a time when the Minister of Finance is boasting about economic recovery across the country, the unemployment figures for the Atlantic Provinces are locked at 14.8 per cent. That is almost 4 per cent above the national average. Given the particular plight of the unemployed in Prince Edward Island, does the Minister have any specific plans to enable Georgetown Seafoods in Georgetown, P.E.I. to open in time for the new fish season in May, so that fishermen and fish processors can get back to work?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, the Georgetown plant in the riding of the Minister for Veterans Affairs is one of the great priorities of the Government and of my Department. Because of the efforts of my colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, 1 will soon be announcing developments regarding it. I would like to emphasize to the people of Prince Edward Island that, if my efforts prove successful, it will be due to the support I had from the Prime Minister, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, and all of the Cabinet rather than the Opposition.


TIMING OF PLANT REOPENING
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. The Minister's colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, last summer gave the people of Prince Edward Island a firm commitment that the plant in Georgetown would be opened imminently. Recently he said it would be opened in time for the new Fish season in May. Who is misleading the people of Prince Edward Island- the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Will the Minister rise today and give a firm commitment to the fishermen of Prince Edward Island that that plant will be open in time for the new fish season in May? Yes or no?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, there is no limit to the hypocrisy of the Official Opposition. When I recently tabled a Bill regarding the fishery, their slogan was that the Government should not intervene, it should be left to the private sector. In the same breath he is criticizing my colleague for not opening it himself. For weeks they have been saying the Government should not be involved, that the private sector should do it.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Yes or no?


Pierre De Bané: I will be making an announcement about it in the near future-it is not a question of months-and if it is going to re-open it will be due to the sole efforts of this Government. The Official Opposition has shown its hyprocrisy in the whole issue.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance following up on the questions the Hon. Member for Oshawa raised. Is the Minister aware that among young people the unemployment rate has gone up to about one in five? Does the Minister agree with the remarks made this week by one of the newest Ministers of the Cabinet, the Minister of Youth, when she said that if we do not tackle the problem of youth unemployment a generation will be sacrificed, or a generation will revolt? She said that if she were in the youth group she would not tolerate excluding
Oral Questions
herself from participating in society. Does he agree with those remarks and, if so, what will he do for young people and their tremendous unemployment rate?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member said, in the last month unemployment among young people has not gone up, it has gone down. 1 would invite him to check the figures in that regard.
The Government has announced in the Speech from the Throne a very firm commitment to try to alleviate the very serious problem of unemployment among young people. The special $1 billion fund that has been allocated for the purpose of addressing the problem of youth unemployment is a clear indication of our commitment and determination to try to address this problem very seriously. The appointment of a Minister with special responsibility for youth is another indication of our concern and determination to address this problem and to make sure that all of our activities in Government bear in mind the impact of our many programs on youth.
Thus, I think my hon. friend is waking up rather late to a very serious problem of which the Government has been very conscious. It is a problem on which we have taken steps a long time ago, and have taken further steps in the last few months. The record is there. We are indeed very concerned about the problem of high unemployment among our young people. We want to address it, and have addressed it. If we can Find better ways to do it than we have, we will implement those also. This Government has shown its commitment in that regard.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Minister suggests that 1 am a long time waking up. I remind the Minister that this problem of one in five young people being unemployed, which is 20 per cent, has been there for six months.


SUGGESTED FUNDING FOR EMPLOYMENT IN SOCIAL SERVICES
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Would the Minister be prepared to accept what I think is a positive suggestion? Instead of putting money into these temporary make-work programs, shuffling money from other programs, why does he not consider putting money into social service programs to employ young people, where the provinces have cut back, such as daycare or care for seniors? Would the Minister consider that positive suggestion to transfer some job creation funds out of temporary make-work projects into projects that include social services and real jobs for young people in Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is denigrating the creation of short term work. I think that is an extraordinary mistake on his part. The most difficult factor which young people find hindering them when entering the labour force and getting employment is a lack of job experience. The short term job that is created, even if it is a short term job, is one which is in a sense a passport to continued employment downstream.

February 3, 1984
Oral Questions
There is a continual rejection of an understanding on the part of the New Democratic Party members that that kind of work experience is extraordinarily useful for young people. I do not think it should be condemned as a tactic of this Government.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It would seem that the Opposition is not interested in asking questions of the Prime Minister on peace-making except when he is away from the House. I would like to congratulate him on his latest trip, which I think is tremendously important.


John Carnell Crosbie: Naturally.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Romania.


Paul Edmund McRae: Now that he has pointed out that the emperor, meaning NATO, has no clothes-


John Carnell Crosbie: Nor does the Prime Minister.


Paul Edmund McRae: -will he pursue the debate within NATO on whether the first use of nuclear weapons, which could destroy Europe totally, makes a lot of sense as a defence and, if it does not make sense and we have no defence at all, whether some other defence is necessary?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Hon. Member has been a very firm supporter of the Government's peace initiative and I am very grateful for the initiatives he has taken himself in that area.
If I could make a comment on the preamble to the question, I want to point out to him that I did not actually say that the emperor had no clothes. I said that a lot of people were pointing out that the emperor had no clothes-


John Carnell Crosbie: Particularly in your Party.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -including, of course, the Leader of the Conservative Party, who made that point in his December speech in his point No. 5.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That's not so.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But that has since been repudiated by his fellow members of the Party who are paranoid about anything-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Tell the truth.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that a third level official in the United States might say.
I feel that the importance of establishing contact with Warsaw Pact countries is self evident. But for the Tories who always cringe in front of that kind of thing, I would want to remind them that Mrs. Thatcher has gone to Hungary today, presumably in the same spirit of establishing dialogue between NATO and them.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Don't pursue that.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that Ontario is the industrial heartland of Canada. He will also know that Ontario has suffered greatly from Liberal Government policy. Furthermore, he will know that the decline in employment in Canada of 47,000 people in the last month alone is represented in Ontario by 31,000 fewer jobs.
Is he aware that in my area of Bruce-Grey there will be 3,000 fewer jobs in the near future? What is his answer to those men and women, young and old, will lose their jobs? Is he aware of a proposal for an energy centre industrial park that will at least compensate in part for those lost jobs?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, obviously I sympathize with the situation of those people in the Hon. Member's riding who are facing the loss of jobs. I understand, however, that those jobs result fundamentally from a decision of the Ontario Government to close a hydro plant in his constituency. I think this issue should be raised quite strongly by the Hon. Member with the Conservative Government of Ontario in order to see whether he can get it to modify its decision or at least provide some compensation, or other investment, to compensate for the results of its decision.
As far as this Government is concerned, obviously there are a number of programs, of which my hon. friend is aware, in the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion which are available to Canadians facing situations like the one to which my hon. friend has referred. I would urge him to get in touch with those Departments on behalf of the residents in his constituency to see whether there are any programs which could be used.
Moreover, obviously I would hope that he would act like other Members on this side of the House when they are facing similar situations. They are also spending their time trying to approach private firms and encouraging them to invest in their ridings in order to create jobs and take initiatives. Again, I would invite my hon. friend to use all his power to get his colleagues in the Conservative Government of Ontario to take particular steps in that regard.


Gary Michael Gurbin: If the Minister examines the situation closely he will find that AECL, a federal Crown corporation, is a very
February 3, 1984

integral part of the reason why jobs will be lost in that area, and that over-all Liberal Government policy during the last four years has forced provincial Governments across the country to take extraordinary steps in the face of the recession and the continued decline in the economy and job opportunities for Canadians.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister understand that the potential of the proposed energy centre is 4,000 permanent jobs and 1,000 construction jobs? This represents an economic investment of $1.2 billion. This kind of job opportunity or investment will not be there without a fundamental change in Liberal government policy. Is he considering in his upcoming budget, or in some other manner, changing the disincentives to investment and job creation that are inherent in Liberal policy today? Can we expect an opportunity for firms which want to invest, not just in this part of Ontario but across the whole industrial heartland of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the Hon. Member has said, I would remind him that in Ontario, for instance, the federal Government has co-operated quite extensively with the Ontario Government to try to address situations like the one to which my hon. friend is referring. Through the NEED Program, for instance, my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has co-operated with his colleague in Toronto to try to take steps to create as many jobs as possible in Ontario.
As far as the argument of the Hon. Member concerning disincentive to investment is concerned, I would suggest that he get together with his colleagues in the New Democratic Party who have just been complaining today that we were providing too much incentive to the private sector, that we were giving too many incentives, that we were too generous to the private sector. I think, if we get on the one hand the socialists complaining that we are giving too much, and the Tories complaining that we are giving too little, we are probably moving in the right direction and we have the right balance.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I would like to welcome back my old sparring partner by telling him that punching the bag and skipping the rope has been a little dull while he has been away.
Oral Questions
The Minister of National Health and Welfare wrote to me on October 6 and said:
Since single guaranteed income supplement recipients are not yet guaranteed an income adequate to meet their basic needs, the Government intends to increase their benefits as soon as resources permit.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: as the Government has $600 million, which it has collected illegally by means of the Canadian ownership charge on gas and oil at the pumps since the Petrofina takeover was completed, and no new takeover is contemplated, could the Prime Minister advise the House why this $600 million has not been used to start to increase these pensions to bring them up to a level where recipients can live in decency and reasonable comfort?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised at the suggestion of the Hon. Member. I know his heart is in the right place and that he shares our Minister's concern about single people of retirement age. But, if this money is held illegally by the Government, I am sure he would want us to give it back to those from whom it was taken illegally. I cannot follow his reasoning. Why would he want us to-


Mr. Mayer:: Will you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not follow his premise that it is held illegally, but I am prepared to hear argument from him on that.


PENSION ASSISTANCE URGED FOR ELDERLY
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said a week ago, in pinch-hitting for the Prime Minister on this question, that the Government would soon be announcing new plans for spending this tax and had no intention of cancelling this illegal tax, and that the money belonged to the Government, I am asking the Prime Minister, since the Government has this nest-egg of $600 million-it took it illegally and it knows it, that money is there and these people desperately need it-why does the Government not use this money to increase these badly inadequate pensions which the Minister has said, quite rightly, are completely inadequate and which keep these pensioners below the poverty level.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I could only tell the Hon. Member that if we find a way to help the people for whom he shows such concern, we will not do it illegally, as he obviously is encouraging us to do.


George Harris Hees: I am asking you to do it legally.

February 3, 1984
Oral Questions LABOUR CONDITIONS


FINANCIAL COST OF UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Canadian Council on Social Development has done an analysis of what it costs us in 1984 to keep one person, or each individual who is unemployed, unemployed, and it has come up with a figure of $14,500 in lost unemployment insurance benefits, unemployment insurance contributions, CPP, hospital insurance, and income tax. At this cost it would be possible to employ people in the voluntary non-profit sector in full-time, long-term jobs. Is the Minister giving serious consideration to employing people in the non-profit sector in order to have people at work rather than paying them for being unemployed?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, exactly, Mr. Speaker, and I would remind the hon. gentleman that indeed I said so at the time of the Speech from the Throne debate. We have announced that we are contemplating a program to do exactly that. What we have in mind- and what I have already announced several weeks ago-is that we would work with the voluntary sector through the modality of Section 38 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, so that we would be able to use unemployment insurance funds, topped up with some considerable funding on the part of the federal Government, to work with voluntary agencies in creating jobs in a way as we do now with the private sector in the use of Section 38 funds. We have already announced our determination to do that.
Discussions are already taking place with the voluntary sector as to details on how the criteria can be developed, including the Council on Social Development. The general thrust the hon. gentleman has described is one which this Government is already pursuing.


Cyril Keeper: The proposal in the Speech from the Throne was to give a few dollars of pocket money to people who are on unemployment insurance in order for them to volunteer in the private sector.


RECOMMENDATION MADE BY CANADIAN COUNCIL ON SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT
Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, what the Canadian Council on Social Development is recommending is full-time, long-term jobs doing human service. Why has the Minister not given the courtesy of a reply to telephone calls from the Canadian Council on Social Development to meet with him to discuss this serious proposal to create 50,000 full-time, long-term jobs in the voluntary sector?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, briefly, the hon. gentleman has completely mischaracterized our proposal. I suggest he go back and read the documents again. In terms of consultations with the voluntary sector, I have already met with representatives of the
voluntary sector. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has met with representatives of the Canadian Council on Social Development. My officials have met with officials of the Canadian Council on Social Development, and we are arranging a meeting for me once the preparatory work has been done.


PUBLIC WORKS
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. It relates to the Rivers air base in Manitoba which the Government decided to dispose of back in September. The tendering process in now complete and I gather a decision is pending.
Within the guidelines that the Government set out to dispose of the base as a single entity, is there any provision for the community facilities which are there so that they remain and can be used by the community? I am talking about the very excellent runway, some of the buildings on the base, and particularly the golf course.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yes, in fact the authority has been given to accept the highest bidder. I have no exact memory as to the details. I know one of the questions I asked was whether or not we could separate some community facilities, and I was told that in fact they were included in the bid invitation. I hope that the community can in fact arrive at some arrangement with the successful bidder to try to solve the problem.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER CLARIFY SITUATION
Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. There is immediate concern in the Rivers area concerning the upcoming decision. There are people who are employed on the base and there are rumours that they will be laid off imminently. There is a lot of confusion there as a result of dates. We hear that the base will be turned over to the successful bidder at the end of June. We also hear that there will be terminations of people working on the base, in a very few weeks' time. If the Minister could do anything to clear up the situation so that the people in that area would know precisely what is happening, and when it will happen, it would allay a lot of the personal fears which are arising out of some of the rumours that are going around.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member's request is a perfectly reasonable one, and I will try to give immediate attention to this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for St. John's West.


John Edward Broadbent: Where have you been, John?
February 3, 1984


John Carnell Crosbie: I have been away for two weeks. I am sorry to note that washed-out obfuscation is still the practice of the Government.


THE ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In the United States there are now 2,094,000 more people with jobs than prior to the recession, while in Canada we have 193,000 fewer people with jobs than prior to the recession. In view of the fact that real disposable income in the United States is up 3 per cent since previous to the recession, while in Canada it is down about 1 per cent, how can the Minister continue trying to mislead and misrepresent to the Canadian people that we are as well off or doing as well as people in the United States, who are doing far better than we? The Government's policies are therefore a failure, and are continuing to fail. How can he dispute those figures?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I want first to welcome the Hon. Member back from his study tour of the Red Sea. I am always happy to have him here with us.
I will not dispute the figures he has mentioned. I have indicated that we have known a deeper recession than the United States. Since then we have known a rate of recovery, at least for the first three quarters of 1983, which has been faster than in the United States. We still have not succeeded in achieving the low rate of inflation which the United States has succeeded in achieving. However, we have succeeded in reducing our rate of inflation more than the United States or any other country. We started from a higher rate of inflation, a higher level of unemployment, and a deeper recession.
We have clearly indicated by the steps we have taken and by the developments in Canada in 1983, that Canada can recover. We have recovered a good part. It is true we have not yet recovered all the jobs we lost during the recession, but I am confident that in 1984, as the OECD has predicted, Canada will know an excellent year, that during 1984 we will recover all the jobs lost and more, and that we will also recover all the losses and more that we have known in the economy generally.


John Carnell Crosbie: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House-


John Carnell Crosbie: Ah, give me a break, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary.


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are already showing your farsighted statesmanship.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans GOVERNMENT POLICIES


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. While I have been bringing peace to the Red Sea, I come back to find the red ink has not changed here in Canada. Statistics Canada states that we have 1,473,000 unemployed. In my own Province of Newfoundland, there is 19.2 per cent unemployment. Our recovery, so-called, is starting to falter, in part because real disposal income is down. It is not improving greatly. The Government has no new policies or initiatives. What does the Government propose to do to change this deplorable situation? It is better in the Yemen and the Sudan than here in Canada. Does the Minister realize that when he is making these comparisons?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in Yemen last month.


John Carnell Crosbie: If you were, you would not have your head.


PETITIONS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Inter-lake (Mr. Sargeant) meets the requirement of the Standing Order as to form.
The Chair has received notices of questions of privilege from the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise what in fact may well be three points of order, all related, one dependent on the other to some extent. I hope to place them before you fairly quickly in order that you can consider them.
The first point of order relates to yesterday's Hansard. At page 1028 appear the following words:


@Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
I draw to your attention that the "whites" of last night, the preliminary record of the House of Commons debates, read as follows: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" There is then a word that has been deleted. The word that has been deleted is the word "adopte", The reason I know it is the word "adopte" is that last night I listened to the tape of what was said at that precise moment by the Acting Speaker. I subsequently viewed the video tape of what occurred last night and what was said by the Acting Speaker at that point in time. There is no doubt that on both tapes what was said by the

February 3, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
Acting Speaker was as follows: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion"? There was then a pause, followed by the Acting Speaker saying "AdopteIn other words, what he said was "Carried", "Adopte".
I raise this matter initially because it is clear that the record of Hansard that has been issued for the proceedings of yesterday is wrong. It is incomplete. There is an important, in fact a vital, omission from the record of Hansard. That omission in itself contributed significantly to the events that subsequently occurred last night.
As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, towards the end of the afternoon there was a division bell that was rung. After the division bell had stopped ringing, there was a point of order raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition. That exchange which took place between the House Leader for the Official Opposition, the House Leader for the Government, the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane), the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) and myself resulted in the Speaker making the following decision, and I quote only the final sentence:
The Acting Speaker is quoted as saying that the motion is defeated, "I declare the motion lost". In the circumstances, the motion is lost. This House is now adjourned.
I put to you that previous to that ever having occurred, the Acting Speaker had declared the motion carried, had clearly declared the motion carried. If on the second instance, and I will put on the record the exact words, it was inappropriate for the Acting Speaker to proceed, beyond having declared the motion lost, to do anything other than to go on to the next order of business, it was equally inappropriate for the Acting Speaker, having declared the motion carried some time earlier, to proceed with that particular order of business. He should have gone to another order of business.
I want to put the following forward for your consideration. You will remember the events of last evening, I am sure. They were unusual, to say the least. They were unusual in a number of different ways. It was unusual, as I am sure you will admit, that a point of order would be raised at that precise moment. It is not something that happens frequently in the House of Commons. Therefore it took everyone somewhat by surprise.
The point of order that was raised by the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the House Leader for the Official Opposition, was a simple point of order. He rose and said he had a submission to make. He made note of the fact that it was a rare occasion in the House of Commons when we were confronted with an unnecessary division. I paraphase him. I use his own words, but I am not reading verbatim. He went on to say:
As I understand it, and I believe when the "blues" are published they will bear me out-I cannot quote from the official "blues" but I have the "whites" before me-the Acting Speaker who was in the Chair, Mr. Guilbeault, when the question put on the motion that was before the House, asked for the yeas and nays:
He then quoted as follows:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. (it' 11 bail, i) : Those against please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
That is normally the fact.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion is defeated; I declare the motion lost.
He then goes on to say other things and I will return to those in a moment.
Mr. Speaker, you are as aware as I am of the requirement for the putting of a motion. The requirements for the putting of a motion are contained in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition at page 294. Under formula No. 94, "Putting a question to the House", the following format is to be followed:
"Is the House ready for the question?
"The question is as follows:
N.B. Speaker reads motion
"Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
"Carried."
N.B. If several Members call 'No', the Speaker says:
"All those in favour of the motion will please say 'Yea'.
"All those opposed will please say 'Nay'.
"In my opinion, the 'Yeas' (or 'Nays') have it.
"I declare the motion 'carried' (or 'lost')."
N.B. If five or more Members rise, the Speaker says:
"Call in the Members"
I want now to draw to your attention the sequence of events last night. Relating directly to that, I will return in a moment to the question of whether or not the motion was adopted previously. Returning to the sequence of events last night, and keeping in mind what I have just read, Mr. Speaker, let me read what is found at page 1028 of Hansard:



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

['Such a motion cannot be put before the House at this time.']
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Shall all orders and items listed under Private Members' Business preceding Order No. 7 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

NUCLEAR-WEAPON-FREE zone act



Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake) moved: that Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
I pause at that point because, as I said earlier, there is a word missing, an important word missing. However, I will come back to that. The proceedings continue as follows:


Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it agreed or not? I am in the hands of the House.
Further on-I will not read it all-we find:


An Hon. Member:: Put the question.
February 3, 1984


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The question is that Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear-weapon-free zone, be now read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those in favour please, say
yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those against, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion is defeated, I declare the motion lost.
That is exactly what is required according to Formula No. 94, "Putting a question to the House", found in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. Up to that point nothing has gone wrong. Let me continue from page 1028 of Hansard:


An Hon. Member:: Thank you.
And five Members having risen:
Let me repeat "And Jive Members having risen:". It continues:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: No, there are enough Members now.


Mr. Fisher:: No way.


An Hon. Member:: He wasn't here.


Cyril Keeper: The Hon. Member was here all the time.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: You guys were not all here when it was read.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Call in the Members.
And the division bells having been rung.
What happened last night was exactly in keeping with Formula No. 94 found in Beauchesne. What is recorded in Hansard records quite clearly, with one notable exception, that there were five Members who rose in their place and the Acting Speaker called in the Members.
1 put this on the record because I now want to make the following point. If it is argued, as it was, that at a particular point in time there were fewer than five Members present, and if it is subsequently argued that the decision of the Acting Speaker at the time was to ignore that, because he himself says he saw five Members and calls in the Members; if it is argued that he is not allowed by a rule, a precedent or by some practice, having looked at the House and determined there were five Members present, to do that, that somehow or other that was out of order on his part-if it was-because he had already said "the motion is defeated, I declare the motion lost", then 1 would argue that at that point in time which preceded those words he said "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Adopte" that no further proceedings should have carried on. The motion had been carried and the matter should have been referred to committee.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
I raise it in that way because it is crucial, as you can see, Mr. Speaker, for me to establish that in fact the Acting Speaker did acknowledge that the motion was carried. You can understand, I am sure, that that would be absolutely essential. I put it to you, Sir, that there is absolutely no doubt in listening to the tape recordings of the verbal exchange that took place in the House of Commons that between the time the Acting Speaker said "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?" and the time he said "Adopte" a period of time elapsed, a short period albeit; but there was no evidence on the tape that any Member anywhere in the House of Commons said anything. There is no evidence, absolutely none.
More important or equally important, in looking at the video tape of what took place in the House of Commons, again the Acting Speaker stood, as he is required to do, looked to the House and said: "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion". Again, there was no indication that anyone said anything at all between the time he said "motion" and the time, looking down the floor of the House, when he said "Adopte".
If we are to accept that the Acting Speaker could change his mind in those circumstances and could then permit the proceedings to carry on, because after the word "carried" in French had been put to the House, some Members shouted no-


Mr. Tobin:: The Acting Speaker said "No, there are enough Members now."


Ian Deans: If we are to accept that the Acting Speaker is then permitted, having subsequently declared the motion carried-


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Speaker's words give you away.


Ian Deans: -having declared the motion carried, that the Speaker has the right and the authority, hearing other interjections afterwards, to go back and then put the motion to the House again in one way or another, then I contend the Speaker in the second instance had the right to look down the floor of the House to see there were five Members-


Brian Vincent Tobin: "Now".


Ian Deans: -and to call the Members in and have the division bells ring, and we have the right to have the vote taken. If on the second point it is decided by the Chair that we did not have that right, then I suggest the motion should have been declared carried some time prior to that event occurring.
Unfortunately, because of the timing of this event-it had to be raised, and I do not deny it, at that precise moment- because there was no Hansard record to go by, and because there was no opportunity to research the events at the time, the information which I now bring to your attention is information I did not have last night, nor could I have been expected to

February 3, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
have it. Therefore I raise it with you now at the earliest possible moment.
Two quite distinct and different events occurred and the ruling on one bears heavily on the decision of the Chair on the second event, bears heavily on what ought to have happened in the first instance.
If you, Mr. Speaker, were to hear the tape and if you were to watch the videotape, I am sure, Sir, that you could come to no other conclusion but that the Acting Speaker in all good conscience declared the motion carried at a point in time preceding that point when the question arose as to whether or not five Members stood in their places. Having done that, the Acting Speaker either is entitled to review it again in light of the circumstances of that moment and do what he did, or he is not entitled to do that. If he is entitled to do it, then I maintain he is equally entitled to have recognized the five Members that he recognized and the vote should have taken place. After having announced the motion carried, if he is not entitled to reconsider it in light of the noise that came from the Government and perhaps from other benches in the House, then he is not entitled to reconsider it in the second instance.
It is a fine point but I consider it to be of vital importance. It has set a precedent that will be very difficult for Members to live with. I will give you an example, Sir.
It is not uncommon, neither should it be, for the Speaker, having decided one thing, to look and say no, that something else must be done. I am sure that you, Sir, have found yourself in that position. The best example is just a few moments ago when, upon rising to say, in the words that you began with, "I have the honour", you then looked down because the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) was asking for a further supplementary. It was after the hour of twelve o'clock but in your wisdom-and I do not quarrel with it-you decided not to go on with what you were going to say but, rather, to recognize the Hon. Member for St. John's West.
It is a common practice. Frequently I have seen you, Sir, recognize a Member and then on looking, discover that the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) or perhaps his predecessor had risen in his place, and even after having recognized a Member you have said "I will come to the Member after but I want to recognize this Member first". It is not an uncommon occurrence for a Speaker, having said something, to reconsider and say something quite different.
I contend that to argue that the Speaker does not have that power is to limit the Speaker considerably in the performance of his or her duty, depending on who it happens to be at the time. I would argue that the Speaker does have that power. I would argue that the Speaker in the Chair always has the power to look and to reassess what has happened, provided it is done immediately and not the next day or three days later; but to look at it immediately and reassess what has happened and then change his or her mind as to the import of what has taken place or as to the substance of what has taken place.
I contend that is exactly what happened last night. The Speaker did not sit down. He did not lean to do anything else.
He was standing throughout the entire piece. When he said "I declare the motion lost", he was still looking down the floor of the House. There were two or three Members shouting and he then said: "No, I see five Members now and I therefore call in the Members". I contend that that is an authority and a power that the Speaker must have. In the interests of being able to perform the functions of Speaker, the Speaker, whether it be the Speaker himself or one of his deputies, must have that kind of power and must have the confidence of the House that allows the Speaker to have that kind of power. Last night we took that power away-not us, but that power was taken away. I suggest to you, with the best of intentions, that that was quite wrong. It was quite wrong to do that. It will limit a Speaker's ability to do the necessary work within the House of Commons that must be done.
I would ask for three things. I would ask, first, that you view and listen to the transcripts to determine the authenticity and validity of what I have said with regard to what took place last night.
I would ask that if you find that in fact the Speaker did declare that the motion was adopted, that you first of all order that that be put into Hansard in its proper place.
I would then ask, in the light of having come to that conclusion, that you reconsider whether the Bill of my hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sar-geant), has been properly dealt with; that as a result of the proceedings that occurred last night the Bill has now been defeated when in fact I contend there is evidence to show it was carried. If you come to the conclusion that in fact an error did occur, I ask that you direct that the Bill be put back on the Order Paper and that the Bill be debated again, or else that you come to the conclusion that the Bill was in fact carried and that it therefore should be sent to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. Or-there are options, and I leave you to make your own-that you declare that the debate on the matter was not concluded last night at six o'clock, that the division bells which stopped and were intended to call in the Members for a vote are as valid now as they were then, and that the division that was asked for legitimately, I put to you, within the Standing Orders, be ordered to take place so that this matter can be properly dealt with.
I want to add one final comment in order to try to put the thing into its final context so that it is complete. You will know, Sir, that there was some question about whether the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) was in the House and in his place at the appropriate time. If you refer back to what I said about Formula No. 94 dealing with the procedure, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North complied in total with what was required of him. He himself would have made the point but unfortunately he is not able to be here this morning. If you remember, he pointed out in rising during the discussion that took place that he was in fact here. I want to make that point. At page 1029 of Hansard the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North said:
-I was coming into the House when the motion was being put.
February 3, 1984

That is the first key thing, because he did in fact then hear the motion. He continued:
I heard the motion and 1 heard the Hon. Members who expressed their yeas and nays. By the time the Speaker had declared the motion was lost, I was in my seat, as has been indicated.
Then he went on to say:
I was in my seat by that time. I knew what the question was and I was in my seat. When I was in my seat and when it was time to call for a recorded vote, there were five of us here. It is as simple as that.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North, on his word as a Member of this House, a respected Member of this House, a senior Member of this House, stated categorically that he was here in time to stand with his colleagues in order that there would be five Members and the recorded division could take place.
It is a practice in this House, long established, that regardless of what allegation may be made against a Member, if he rises and says that he was present or whatever, that is accepted. It is accepted by all sides. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North last night said he was here, and he was. He said he was here in time to stand with his colleagues to cause the vote, and he was. By virtue of his having said so, that should have been the end of it. The vote should then have taken place. What has happened is that the honour of this Hon. Member has been called into question as a result of the conclusion which was arrived at last night, and I object most strenuously to that.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North has never uttered a falsehood in this House in his time here. To try to leave the impression that perhaps that occurred last night is disgraceful. I therefore ask you, Sir, taking all of those things into account, to look at the avenues which are now open and to declare that the vote was either carried in the first instance and that Hansard be directed to put that into the record of yesterday's events in the House of Commons; or that the matter was not resolved at the adjournment hour last night and the vote has still to take place.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has argued at some length a matter which was decided last night. Without creating a precedent, the Chair has allowed a discussion to take place with regard to that because of the unique circumstances and the importance of the matter raised. It is, however, I repeat, not to be a precedent concerning a decision which has been made by the Chair.
The Hon. Member has indicated that the Chair in a number of instances uses discretion. The Chair cannot accept a parallel between a choice of who is to pose a question in Question Period and the procedures for the recording of a vote of the House of Commons which, of necessity, must be precise and clear. Reviewing last night's record, the Acting Speaker indicated-and I am quoting as the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) did-at page 1028 of Hansard:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
Then "Carried?"-with a question mark. That is the usual format of the House. That is the normal way in which the House puts a question. It is quite clear that the word "adopte" was in the record, but in an interrogative way, and the format which is normal and usual, time-honoured in this place, when a question is put, is "Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Carried?"-with an intonation indicating a question. It is not essential that "Carried?"-with a question mark-be put into Hansard. However, if the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain wishes, the Chair would have no objection to directing that that word, with a question mark, be inserted into Hansard.
The procedure is very clear and it was followed by the occupant of the chair. The Chair went through the procedure, put the motion when it was called to his attention, and actually put it very explicitly. I quote from Hansard at page 1028:


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: All those in favour, please say
yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Those against, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
That is a very precise formula. If Hon. Members are to object, they object at that point. They objected after:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The motion is defeated, I declare the motion lost.
That was said by the Speaker and then Hon. Members objected, in support of which I quote the words of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) on the following page, page 1029. He said:


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, 1 was coming into the House when the motion was being put. I heard the motion and I heard the Hon. Members who expressed their yeas and nays. By the time the Speaker had declared the motion was lost, I
was in my seat-
It was not after: "In my opinion, the nays have it". He said: "By the time the Speaker had declared the motion was lost, I was in my seat". The time at which the Hon. Member had to be in his seat was after the Speaker had said: "In my opinion, the nays have it."
May I call the attention of Hon. Members to a practice which has given some distress to the Chair. I quote from Standing Order 15(2):
When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
The process of Hon. Members entering the House when a vote is being taken-and the issue arose in Committee of the Whole not so long ago-raises all sorts of difficulty. The Chair will have to observe strict decorum and strict adherence to this rule. In the opinion of the Chair, the word "adopte" should be added to Hansard with a question mark, indicating the time-

February 3, 1984
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
honoured formula. The matter was considered, argued last night, argued again today, and the Chair is of the same opinion as it was last night, that when the incumbent of the chair said, as he did very explicitly, "The motion is defeated, I declare the motion lost", in the opinion of the Chair every requirement relating to a vote, every single one, had been observed. In the opinion of the Chair at that point the motion was lost.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) has a point of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I rise on a related point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not challenging your ruling, but, I want to ensure a precedent not be created. In fact, last night, if you continue reading Hansard, on page 1029 the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member is not going to be permitted at this point to debate again a matter which was raised last night, raised by his House Leader .for over 30 minutes today, and decided. The Hon. Member gave notice to the Chair of a matter of privilege he wanted to raise. He will be recognized on the matter of privilege to which he gave notice to the Chair.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: On a point of order, I seek clarification, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no clarification. The matter has been decided. Will the Hon. Member deal with his point of privilege?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I seek to raise a related point of order which was not raised by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: The process of embarrassing the Chair, by attempts to reflect on a decision of the Chair, under the guise of points of order relating to matters which have been decided, is something which Hon. Members will have to abandon. It reflects on the dignity of this place. It leads to a considerable amount of time being wasted in this institution. In the opinion of the Chair, if the Hon. Member wishes to deal with his point of privilege, he will be recognized. He will not be recognized to deal with the matter which were decided last night and on which I have made supplementary observations today.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This is separate point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I must insist on you at least hearing me out. I will try to put it very briefly. I do not mean to degrade the Chair-


Mr. Speaker:: Does it relate to the proceedings of this House at the time of the division last night in Private Members' Hour? Does it relate to that matter?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, it does.


Mr. Speaker:: Then the Chair is not prepared to hear further points of order on the matter.


Cyril Keeper: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member has a point of order which does not relate to a decision of the Chair, it will be heard. If the Hon. Member is seeking to reflect on a decision of the Chair, he will not be heard. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper).


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for leave to move the following motion: that the House proceed to Private Members' Hour to debate Bill C-203, an Act to declare-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member cannot rise on a point of order to make such a motion.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Will the Chair be prepared to hear me on my point of privilege arising from the Question Period?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair attempted three times to give the Hon. Member the opportunity to speak, which he did not choose to take. He will be recognized for his point of privilege.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I just wondered if the Chair is prepared to recognize me, not to denigrate me.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's track record will speak for itself.


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege arising out of Question Period. I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde) about youth unemployment and I believe he misled the House, I do not think intentionally, in his reply. He is not in the House but I would like to give him an opportunity to correct the record when he returns.
My point was simply that youth unemployment had gone up. In fact, it has increased in real terms by 39,000 people over December, 1983. In real terms the unemployment rate among youths aged 15 to 24 has increased from 18.4 per cent in December, 1983, to 20.4 per cent in January, 1984. I put that in general terms to the Minister, not those specific figures.


Mr. Speaker:: With all due respect to the Hon. Member, he is rising on a question of privilege. Would he please give a general indication of how his privileges as a Member are affected. From what the Chair has heard so far, it appears to

February 3, 1984
be debate. Will the Hon. Member indicate in what direction his privileges are affected?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my privileges are affected in that the Minister gave a false answer and I would like to give him the opportunity to change it.


Mr. Speaker:: There is ample precedent that differences of opinion as to facts do not constitute privilege. The Hon. Member may well have a matter he would like to raise at the Adjournment Debate or at another opportunity. Obviously differences of opinion between Hon. Members take place and interpretations of fact are obviously going to be a matter of difference. It is difficult to accept this as a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is with reference to the attempt by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James to rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent of the House for leave to present a motion.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member was out of order in rising on a point of order to move a motion of that nature. Under our Standing Orders he cannot do so. There are procedures under which the Hon. Member can seek the consent of the House to do various things; but this is not one of the options permitted.


Ian Deans: On the same point, Mr. Speaker, I am not reflecting on the Speaker in any way, I hope you understand that. Quite frankly, Sir, it has been the practice in this House for Members to rise on a point of order to seek unanimous consent. It is appropriate under any circumstances, at any time, for a Member to seek unanimous consent to do anything. It is always appropriate. I would ask the Speaker to reflect on that.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising the question of a practice which has become much too frequent in the House, in the opinion of the Chair, in seeking unanimous consent. However, I cannot refuse it. The Hon. Member rises to seek unanimous consent and the Chair will have to recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James.
The Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is seeking to be heard on the point? The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James is rising to seek unanimous consent of the House on a matter. We will hear what that is and deal with it, if the Hon. Member for Yukon will concur.


Cyril Keeper: I seek unanimous consent-


Mr. Nielsen:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Point of Order-Mr. Murphy


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will hear what the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James has to say, and then I will hear the Hon. Member for Yukon, for whose opinion the Chair has a high regard.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for leave to move the following motion;
That the House proceed to Private Member's Hour to debate Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone.
Even though the Tories and the Liberals are trying to muzzle us.


Mr. Speaker:: The absurdity of the motion is that it asks the House to reflect on a decision which has been made. A decision has been made and the motion has been rejected. There is ample precedent that the House cannot accept a motion to reverse a decison of the House in this way. The Hon. Member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to make the passing observation, that even if the Chair were disposed to put that question, there being no Private Members' Hour today the motion itself would not be in proper form. That is a short answer to it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect to this motion, you did precisely that last night. You accepted the point of order of the Hon. Member for Yukon after the division bells had rung. Now, why can our Member not get up and raise a point of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is entirely out of order. Last night the Chair accepted a point of order and heard representations from all Parties in the House, including the Party of the Hon. Member. That matter is terminated. I see the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) rising.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I hope this point of order will in fact be in order because of the reference you made to there not being a Private Members' Hour today. I therefore seek the unanimous consent of the House-


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair did not make any reference to what is taking place today.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry, the Hon. Member for Yukon said that. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is to seek the unanimous consent of the House for leave to move the following motion:
That the subject matter of Bill C-204, an Act to declare Canada a nuclear weapons-free zone, be the subject matter of an emergency debate for the remainder of this sitting day.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, being an experienced parliamentarian and well acquainted with the rules, knows that a motion to reflect on a judgment of the House cannot be accepted.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not a motion to reflect on the judgment of the House.

February 3, 1984
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be put before the House at this time.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to present another petition from constituents of mine, 164 in number, bringing the total to 609 of my constituents who are distillery workers, their families or friends, who are concerned about the unfair taxation of their product and the resulting loss of jobs at their plant in Gimli, Manitoba. They call upon Parliament to replace the system of automatically indexing excise taxes with a system which will permit a knowledgeable and realistic application of those duties.
*
* *


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 3, 52 and 378.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Did the Government assist New Brunswick with a spruce budworm spraying program in 1983 and, if so (a) at what cost (b) what areas were sprayed?
2.	Was an analysis of the spraying operation made and was it considered effective?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: 1.
The Government of Canada did not assist the Government of New Brunswick with the spruce budworm spray program in 1983, except for technical advice on effectiveness of spray materials and means of application.
(a)	Not applicable.
(b)	Under the direction of the Provincial Government of New Brunswick about 1.5 million hectares were treated for spruce budworm suppression in 1983 in various parts of the Province but concentrated heavily in mid and northern New Brunswick.
2. Yes, an analysis was made by New Brunswick Department of Natural Resources. The spray program was successful in meeting the objective of tree protection.



PERSONS EMPLOYED IN OFFICE OF CHIEF ELECTORAL OFFICER


Mr. McKenzie: In the fiscal year (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 (c) 1981-82 (d) 1982-83 (e) 1983-84, what was the total amount budgeted for the signage renewal program of the Public Works Federal Identity Program and, in each case, what was the total cost?


Roméo LeBlanc: Federal Identity Program Signage Renewal


Mr. Howie: 1.	In the current fiscal year how many persons are employed in the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and what is the total estimated cost of salaries?
2.	For each of the two preceding fiscal years what amount was spent for salaries?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Chief Electoral Officer that in so far as the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is concerned, the answer is as follows:
		Total Amount				Salaries		
	Fiscal Year	Budgeted	Total Cost					
					Current Year			
(a)	1979-80	$ 619,000	$1,432,000***	1983-1984	1983-1984	(b)	1980-81	Forecast	Person-Years	1982-1983	1981-1982365,000	1,482,000***	Expenditures	Forecast	Expenditures	Expenditures(c)	1981-82	2,150,000	2,225,000***	Continuing employees	$1,568,000	51	$1,327,000	$1,261,000(d)	1982-83	368,000	182,000	Term (statutory)	(c)	1983-84	1,957,000*	527,019**	Electoral boundaries	
* Budgeted $ as at November 30, 1983 ** Actual expenditures to November 30, 1983
*** Expenditures over budget due to acceleration of this priority program by redeployment of funds from lesser priority budget areas within Public Works Canada program.
Readjustment Act (subsection 28(2))
and
Canada Elections Act (subsection 5(3))
726,000

$1,844,000	$1,332,000
February 3, 1984


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN

Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 205 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 205 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATIONS-EMPLOYMENT OF OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS

Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Communications and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South) moved:: That this House condemns the government for having taken no action to resolve the problems facing the Pacific Coast fishery primary among which is the government's Pacific Fisheries Policy, described by the Pearse report as resulting from "uncertain objectives, weak and outdated legislation, bad organization, contradictory programs and confusion", and which undermines the viability of the Pacific Coast fishery, reduces fish stocks, and threatens the livelihood of Canadians who depend upon this important resource.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a matter of great urgency for all of those who make their living from the fisheries on the West Coast of our country. Mr. Speaker, you have read the motion which contains the words of Dr. Pearse, who completed a royal commission into the situation on the
Supply
West Coast and condemned the Government by stating that its policy was "uncertain objectives, weak and outdated legislation, bad organization, contradictory programs and confusion".
It is important that the people of Canada realize that, in the words of a Department of Fisheries working paper of January 5, 1984:
The Pacific salmon fishery is in "crisis".
Dr. Pearse in his report in September, 1982, in almost the same words said:
Canada Pacific fisheries are at a crisis point.
Dr. Pearse went on to say:
Although aggravated by current conditions, the economic problems and other concerns are rooted in fundamental deficiencies in fisheries policy.
Just a few weeks ago Dr. Pearse said:
The situation in the salmon fishery is now worse than when I made my report.
The Cruickshank Report, which was commissioned by the Government and reported several years ago, said:
The present fleet capacity and over-capitalization is the direct result of government inefficiency and a series of misjudgments and inactions.
It was curious to find that the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), who 1 know is concerned about the West Coast fishery, when I read that quote to him some days ago in this Chamber, said:
1 have difficulty in following the logic of the Hon. Member who now wants to blame the Government for those who have decided, contrary to elementary common sense, on over capitalizing and over expanding their fleet.
Not only is the fishery in crisis, Mr. Speaker, but this Minister wants to blame the fishermen. He wants to blame the fishermen despite the quote from the Cruickshank Report commissioned by his own Department which said, and I repeat:
The present fleet capacity and over-capitalization is the direct result of government inefficiency and a series of misjudgments and inactions.
It is not difficult setting out what the problems are, Mr. Speaker. They are not yet fully understood by the public in all of Canada, but the fishermen on the West Coast understand them only too well. The question is what we should do about it.
Before any program of action to save stocks, enhance stocks, and maintain a fishery can be planned and implemented, there must be basic agreement by the user groups and the Department as to what the facts really are. There is nothing radical about this idea although, frankly, I do not think it exists at the moment. You cannot send troops into action without effective reconnaissance. In other words, you must know what the ground is like, where the enemy is, where the difficulties are and where the opportunities are.
In saying this, Mr. Speaker, the last thing I am proposing is another inquiry. I am proposing that a simple list of things we know and things we should know be agreed upon. For instance, if we do not know today whether our salmon are being intercepted on the high seas, let us find out. If we do know that in some river systems there is abundant unused spawning area but the fish just are not getting there, then we know that runs
1054

February 3, 1984
Supply
in that system must have higher escapement. We certainly know that many streams, especially small ones, lost their runs or their potential many years ago. Are these streams identified? Is there a list of them? Mr. Speaker, I doubt it.
Dr. Pearse said:
The available data is limited mainly to the large river systems, so the runs in the hundreds of small streams that account for most coho production and altogether about half of all salmon production could not be analyzed. These smaller streams are undoubtedly the most vulnerable to habitat damage.
How does anyone persuade Treasury Board to increase the Salmonid Enhancement Program funds when we do not even know the potential for small stream improvement? Furthermore, it throws into doubt the validity of the recommendations that flow from the admission that "about half of all salmon production could not be analyzed". As another example, on January 21, 1984 the Sports Fishing Advisory Board wrote to the Minister and said that the sports sector takes only 4 per cent of the net catch of salmon. That is probably true, but unless sports fishermen reading that realize that in the Strait of Georgia they take 68 per cent of the coho and 50 per cent of the chinook, and that on the entire coast they take 21 per cent of the chinook and 15 per cent of the coho, they will never understand why they too are part of the conservation and escapement equation.
A January 5, 1984 departmental working paper, to which I have referred, said that there are more than 300,000 sports fishermen. The Sports Fishing Advisory Board said there are almost 400,000, and Dr. Pearse said 320,000. I am sure there are many more examples. My point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is impossible to manage a fishery without everyone involved understanding just what the facts are. Further, if we believe, as I do, that decision-making must represent the considered views of the various user groups, it is quite impossible to obtain any kind of working consensus without a clear idea of what we know and do not know.
Assuming that we established an agreed upon data base for decision-making, what is the object of the exercise? The object is to stop the decline of stocks, rebuild and expand the stocks, and maximize the employment possibilities associated with the fishery. I do not think there is a fisherman on the coast who would disagree with that statement. Is this really the objective of the Department at the present time? Let us look at the January 5, 1984 working paper. The title, "Pacific Fisheries Policy Options: Working Paper", is instructive. The object, as set out in that paper, reads:
The purpose of this working paper is to set out the important resource, economic and policy considerations respecting Pacific fisheries policy options.
To really know what its implications are one has to examine the working paper itself. That examination is disturbing. Of the four strategic alternatives listed, commencing on page 13, there is not one single mention of habitat restoration. In fact, the word "habitat" never appears. Equally astonishing, the Salmonid Enhancement Program is never mentioned. The only approach that the Department appears to be considering is cutting the catch and reducing the fleet.
I see that my time has been interrupted by the luncheon adjournment. I would therefore call it one o'clock.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment I was speaking about the four strategic alternatives that were listed in the January 5, 1984 Government working paper. These are the strategic alternatives to what could be done to correct the dismal and very difficult situation in the West Coast fishery. I was saying that of the four strategic alternatives listed, commencing on page 13 of the working paper, there is not one single mention of habitat restoration. In fact, the word "habitat" never appears.
Equally astonishing is that the Salmonid Enhancement Program is never mentioned. The only approach that the Department appears to be considering is cutting the catch and reducing the fleet. In other words, there is absolutely no consideration being given to achieving an eventual greater number of fish as a consequence of expanding the total area of habitat necessary for growth of the fishery. Stop the decline, yes. Reduce the catching capacity, yes. But how can anyone have any hope for the future, any hope for a vibrant economically successful fishery, if Government policy does not even consider the potential for a much better fishery?
These so-called policy options do not even recognize why the Salmonid Enhancement Program was established in the first place. It was not established to keep levels of fish production constant. It was not even established to arrest declines. It was established to increase fish production. There is nothing in these policy options that begins to take into account the hundreds of small streams that account for half of our salmon production. There is nothing about rehabilitating those hundreds of streams or any others, for that matter.
Let us consider what should have been in the working paper. The first thing is a clear commitment to restoration of the resource and the industry. The House will note that I include both. I say this because it is our conviction that the industry is in fact of significant value to our province and to Canada. The industry consists of commercial fishermen, including native fishermen, processors and sports fishermen. Associated with the industry are many others whose incomes are dependent upon the fishing industry. There should be a clear signal to all
February 3, 1984

that whatever difficulties the current situation imposes, the objective is to bring the industry back to life as quickly as possible.
Second, there should be no tampering with the concept of the resource as a common property. No matter how tempted some may be to apply classroom economic theories to the fishery, notions which imply a break with the common property principle will dismay and confuse. At a time when legitimate fishermen are having great difficulty, the idea that a property right in the resource might be allotted to some and not to others will create bitterness and division and will effectively end any opportunity for a co-operative approach to the problems by all user groups.
The third imperative is industry participation in fisheries management. This must be something much more than mere consultation. The working paper reads:
As it seeks to resolve these difficulties, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will undertake extensive consultation with the commercial Fishing industry and sport fishery groups through such organizations as the Minister's Advisory Council and the Sport Fish Advisory Board, native groups, and other government agencies.
That is all very well, and a similar high-sounding statement is a standard final paragraph on all Government press releases. It does not mean much.
We are told that the Minister's Advisory Council has already advised the Government on a number of issues. Instead of accepting the advice, the Government appointed a new study group headed by a bureaucrat.
What we have in mind is an industry management board appointed by the respective user groups to determine policy and to report directly to the Minister. Policy recommendations, with the rationale for them, should be made public. This is the only way the difficult decisions, impinging on one group or another as they will under current circumstances, can ever be made to work. The immediate advantage to this is that those who know the most about the industry and the impact of decisions on the industry will be formulating the policy. The insistence that their deliberations be made public will guarantee accountability.
There appears to be widespread support for some sort of voluntary buy-back program. The details of such a program should be determined by the board. These details would include reduction targets aimed at ensuring the economic viability of those remaining in the industry. Such a program should start immediately, be funded by up-front federal money, with repayment by the industry as the beneficial results of the fleet reduction and enhancement of the fishery accrue to the industry.
I have noticed that the working paper does not include anything about habitat in any of its four strategic alternatives, or in other words options. Underlying the existence of a fishery is habitat protection and enhancement. Without habitat there is no fishery, unless one wants seriously to suggest that hatch-
Supply
eries and ocean ranching are an acceptable substitute for natural habitat and wild stocks.
To let this happen would be to abandon our heritage. The Department has issued a discussion paper entitled "Toward a Fish Habitat Management Policy". The Department's proposal reads as follows:
The Department should strive to achieve no net loss of the productive capacity of those habitats that support Canada's Fisheries resource.
This is an appropriate objective although it may not prevail in every circumstance. However, it is a site specific proposal. This does not address the challenge to restore habitat generally in order to establish in British Columbia the desired objective of net gain of habitat. However, another departmental policy proposal is for fish habitat conservation, restoration and development. The Department's discussion paper sets that out.
The working paper to which I have referred makes a specific point that neither of these two policy objectives are policy yet with respect to the Government. Also the working paper indicates that nothing in it "is intended to imply adoption of these principles". There may well be need for further discussion with respect to site specific no net loss, but there is no need for any further discussion in British Columbia about the necessity for a general net gain for fisheries habitat.
The Salmonid Enhancement Program is in a transition stage. Dr. Pearse has counselled caution before proceeding to the next stage in order to evaluate successes or failures. This may be wise, especially as it relates to hatchery enhancement. However, is there any real doubt that small stream rehabilitation and restoration and enhancement of wild stocks can be successfully implemented? Evidence of success in certain places is already clear. There is no question that the combination of fleet reduction and further restrictions on catch will cause hardship for some time. It would seem that now is the time to do everything to reintroduce and enhance stocks wherever possible. To the degree that this is aggressively and imaginatively commenced now, there should be a corresponding acceleration in the rate of stock increases generally.
Second stage Salmonid Enhancement Program funding should be brought forward immediately for this purpose. To the extent possible the necessary work should be done by fishermen displaced by fleet reduction or by economic circumstances.
In conclusion, the fishery is in a crisis state because fisheries management neglected to concern itself with the life cycle of the salmon. Because of the neglect, we must now suffer through a period of fleet reduction and reduced fishing. It is too easy to make the mistake of thinking that that is all we have to do. That was the error of yesteryear. From now on we must do all things necessary to maintain the salmon-protection and rehabilitation of habitat, enhancement of stocks and wise management of the harvest by industry. If we do this, we can guarantee the success of the salmon at every stage of its

February 3, 1984
Supply
life-from the moment the fertilized eggs are secured in clean gravel to that dramatic time when these great fish spend their last days in the creation of another generation of their species.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Miller:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would like to ask of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). He is aware that there is a project in British Columbia which will have some significant impacts upon salmon stocks if indeed it is given approval to go ahead. I am referring to the Kemano II Project which is now being termed the Kemano Completion Project by Alcan. Would the Hon. Member support the New Democratic Party request that a public inquiry with regard to that project be sponsored by the federal Government?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to accept that question. The Hon. Member and others will remember that when I was Minister of the Environment and the publicity first broke in British Columbia with respect to the plans of Alcan to proceed with the Kemano Completion Project, I said, because there was a suggestion that they could do anything they wanted because of the contract into which they had entered with the Government of British Columbia in 1950, that I would insist upon an environmental assessment review process hearing being held. I said that if necessary, in order to accommodate that, I would broaden the guidelines which governed those federal hearings. I also said that I was prepared to enter into arrangements with the provincial government so that provincial representation could be on a joint board.
My understanding of the situation at the moment is that the company has applied to the utilities commission under British Columbia legislation. Of course, there will be a hearing. One of the difficulties is that there is some suggestion that interven-ors will not be funded before that provincial hearing. I would hope the NDP would join with me in insisting that representations be made to the provincial government that intervenors be funded and, in the event that is not done, that the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans fund those intervenors.
With respect to the specific question my hon. friend asked me as to whether I would favour a hearing or a public inquiry, I do. What concerns me is whether that forum will get a completely clear picture of the proposed industrial development. I do not think that that is possible if interested third parties are denied the right to intervene.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the comments of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser). I know of his great interest in the B.C. fishery. He has expressed this many times.
The problem in British Columbia is not a simple one. It is very complex. I would like to make a quick observation. On the one hand, we have a shortfall in the ingredients required to make the commercial fishery viable. On the other hand, we have an increasing demand. I worry about the lobby groups I see being formed on both sides, the political lobby groups, and the money being solicited to lobby and the greater demand from the sport fishery for participation. The constant factor is that everyone agrees there is a necessity for a reduction in catch if we are going to protect the salmon despite who the users may ultimately be.
I did not hear this during his comments, and I would ask him specifically to state what he recommends to the Government. We have lobby groups from both sides coming to talk to us. One talks about the lack of ingredients for economic viability. The other says that they only have 4 per cent or 5 per cent of the catch and they want greater access. Given that kind of dilemma, what kind of advice does the Hon. Member propose for this Government? We can all comment on the seriousness of the problem but I have not heard specific solutions as to how to resolve it.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for the question. The question is legitimate and cogent. The answer is that we would recommend that the Government establish an industry management board with representation from all segments of the industry, including the sports fisherman, one of the groups to which the Hon. Member alluded. If we are going to do that, as 1 have urged, that industrial management board must have some clout. It must be respected. The policy options that it works out must be treated seriously by the Government.
With respect to the specific problem of different user groups contesting among themselves for the resource, I would inform the House that perhaps at no time in the history of British Columbia has there been a moment when there was a better appreciation among all the user groups that the decline in stocks has to stop, that all user groups, and some more than others, would have to contribute to that decline. If this is understood by government that seeks the advice and seeks as much unanimity as it can obtain through an industry management board, then the difficult decisions and restrictions that have to be imposed will be accepted, as long as everybody knows that it is a commitment of government to bring back the fishery. Many of them can wait for a little while, but they must have hope, not that the approach of government is just to cut the catch and cut the fleet, but to seriously engage and embark upon a program of increasing the habitat capacity, increasing the entire fishery so that there will indeed be a brighter tomorrow.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the Hon. Member indicate that my question was cogent and that we all know there has to be a reduction in catch at this stage. I was
February 3, 1984

interested in hearing him say that we should form a consultative committee and listen to its recommendations.
What I am interested in now, given that this debate was initiated by his Party, is his recommendations. Being involved in the Department, I find that the reality is that on one hand we have a very serious problem. We have conflicting user groups. We have an acknowledged necessity of cutting back on a source available to those conflicting user groups. Everybody is saying, with a wave of the magic wand, let us increase the amount of fish or let us have a consultative committee to give us solutions, and the problem will be solved.
I recognize that I am asking a very difficult question. It is a very tough question. A large group of fishermen will be coming to Ottawa on Monday. I read in the papers that the sports fishery is putting together its own lobby effort. It will come to Ottawa from British Columbia in perhaps the next few weeks. It is not enough to say we are going to cut back on everybody. The reality is that the commercial fishery takes about 90 per cent of the catch and the sport fishery takes from 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the catch.
I ask the Hon. Member how we can make realistic cutbacks on user groups that go some distance toward preserving the salmon stocks and where those cutbacks should be made. That is the question to you. I ask it because I know of your serious interest.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions must always be addressed to the Chair.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the Pearse report came down in the autumn of 1982. The Minister's advisory committee worked with the Minister for a year. Recommendations were made. As far as we can find out, those recommendations have not been followed. That should be understood.
With respect to the specific question, the January 5 working paper which we have in front of us starkly points out that chinook catches are declining rapidly, are considered threatened and need a 30 per cent reduction; coho stocks need a 25 per cent reduction in catch and the sockeye catch in some places needs an 18 per cent reduction in catch. I could go on. Those reductions have to made. In addition, a fleet reduction has to be made. We have gone for two winters, the worst winter since the Depression, and the Department and the Minister have done nothing to get a fleet reduction buy-back going.
Let me be completely blunt in answering the question of my friend. You make those cuts and you make sure that it is understood by every user group why they are being made. They will be accepted. You also have to put into place immediately other policies which give the user groups some hope for the future. At present that is not being done. All that is being done is talking about cuts and fleet reduction. There is no strategy for building the habitat, no strategy for a net gain
Supply
of habitat, no strategy for being able to say in a number of years that if you suffer and accept what we have to put you through now, there will be a better fishery of which you can partake.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere hope that the people of Canada, after having heard that exchange between the Parliamentary Secretary and the speaker for the Official Opposition, will realize to what extent that Party is a Party bankrupt when talking about ideas, policies and asking tough questions. It was demonstrated again that the only quality the new Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) has been able to generate in his Party is crass political opportunism. We have seen no policies at all, just crass political opportunism. I will give them still another opportunity to declare themselves on something of substance instead of mere, cheap rhetoric. If they sincerely want to make a contribution, I will genuinely listen to their views on the real issues. All they need to do is to state them clearly and unequivocally.
When I say that I sincerely hope that the people of Canada are watching closely, it is so that they will see the vast difference between a Government which has been listening to the people it has been serving, and thus has been reluctant to pre-empt consultation, a Government which has taken a sincere approach to the Pacific fishery, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, where it was stated unequivocally by the Cabinet that the Pacific fishery will be one of the important actions during this session.
On the other side there is a party so ambitious for power but so bankrupt of ideas and out of touch with the issues that all it can think of is empty posturing. The speech of the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) did not give a hint of what the Conservatives would suggest, which prompted questions from the NDP and questions from this side. After that speech the Tories were pressed for some idea of the direction in which they would go. As you have seen, Mr. Speaker, they are too cowardly and too opportunistic to give any sensible, hard policy options.
Let me clearly and for the public record explode the balloon of the spurious purpose of this debate. For more than a year I have been engaged in consultations with the various sectors of the Pacific fishery. During this time Members opposite, and particularly the Tories, have demonstrated little, if any, concern. Indeed, although my door has been always open, barely one Tory has walked in, and that only recently. But now it is known that a large delegation from the Pacific fishery is coming to Ottawa next week to make their views known and their presence felt on their Members of Parliament they are unable to meet with in British Columbia. It is a shame that representatives of a sector already suffering hardship must

February 3, 1984
Supply
come to Ottawa to get the adequate attention of their Member of Parliament. But this is it.
Now on the eve of the arrival of this large delegation the opposition Party has decided to bring the topic here before the House of Commons on a Friday afternoon when most Members of Parliament have to travel back to their constituencies. It gives you an idea, Mr. Speaker, of the importance of that issue to members of the opposition Party. It takes a visit to Ottawa of a very important delegation from the west to move on that topic. It takes that important event to start asking for appointments with my office, and what they choose is Friday afternoon which, as everybody knows, is not the most suitable time to attract the attention of the House.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: The Government selected Friday afternoon.


Mr. Huntington:: Speak to the Member who sits next to you.


Pierre De Bané: It shows you the hyprocrisy. When I hear their carping, I know I am hitting the right button, Mr. Speaker.
The Opposition wants to pretend it is doing its job in opposition. This pretence is to ride on the back of the serious problems of the Pacific fishery. The ambition for power has become such an obsession that the pretence of doing a job in opposition has simply become a corollary to the pretence that it will bring forth a coherent policy, about which it will only tell the people after it is elected, if it is elected.
At the outset of this debate, let us clearly understand what it is about and what is its purpose. A delegation is coming to Ottawa next week and the Tories want to pretend they are concerned with people when they are really only concerned with power. Today we are engaging in Tory-style smoke and mirrors grandstanding.
I am well aware of the statement made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He said: "We will not tell the Canadian electorate our policies because we know that if we tell them we will never be elected". That is becoming clearer and clearer during this debate. We are aware of the spurious planning of this charade between Mr. Fraser and Mr. Hicks and their final meeting with their leader yesterday on this strategy. Now we all know what it is about. I hope the people of Canada, and especially those in B.C., are watching closely and seeing the kind of alternative they will be offered in the next election.
This leads me to the next point. While this spurious planning was being undertaken, the Opposition knew very well that an important meeting was scheduled to begin today in Vancouver with the Minister's Advisory Council. This meeting is being attended by my senior staff and officials and is one which I would have liked to attend, but I must be here in readiness for crass shams and behind the curtain tactics of a desperate Opposition.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Who wrote this for you, Keith Davey?


Pierre De Bané: Nevertheless, I shall retain the dignity of the Government and simultaneously shame and grace this disgraceful opportunism by raising the real issues. I will ask that Opposition to state its position on the issues. I will ask Members opposite to tell us what they believe should be done on these very important issues. I will be pleased to take those views into account, along with the final positions pronounced by his sector representatives on the Minister's Advisory Council, which I might add and repeat have not yet been made.
To begin with, in yesterday's motion to have this debate today, the Opposition reveals its ambition for power and its inclination to rule rather than govern when it condemns this Governent for having accepted the request of the people who will be most affected by it.
On February 18, 1983, after consultation with the Minister's Advisory Council, I announced acceptance of 76 of the recommendations made in the report by Commissioner Peter Pearse and rejection of 12 others. At that time I also agreed to a request by the Minister's Advisory Council that final decisions on the key issues of fleet reductions, allocations to the Indians and sports fisheries, improved fishery management and consultative arrangements not be taken until the Minister's Advisory Council had had an opportunity to try to develop a consensus position on these matters and make its own recommendations.
It was agreed the MAC would report to me by November 30, 1983. Since then, MAC has requested that it continue to be involved in the process of developing appropriate measures in these areas and that there be continuing dialogue. I have respected that request and made certain that the Minister's Advisory Council has had the resources and the opportunity.
When the Opposition condemns this Government for not acting unilaterally before now, what it is doing is actually condemning the Government for respecting the wishes of the people it serves. By so doing, the Opposition condemns those same people for asking the Government not to act on those issues before now.
I am fully and painfully aware that the social and economic values inherent in the Pacific fishery represent more than mere numbers and statistics. They represent life styles, community well-being, cultural and family traditions, and I am profoundly sensitive to all of these. They also represent the purest kinds of environmental values, the conservation and husbandry of a living resource of great value and vital, social trust.
As painful and difficult as it may be, as Minister it is my duty to try carefully and conscientiously to find and implement a balance between the demands of the groups who depend on this resource and the biological capacity of this resource to meet those demands. That is the fundamental question which the Parliamentary Secretary had put and I think he is absolutely right. The first duty of the Minister of Fisheries and
February 3, 1984

Oceans is to protect the resource for present and future generations.
The present crisis in the Pacific fishery flows from the combined effects of a serious state of decline in salmon stocks and the extremely depressed state of the economy of the commercial salmon fishery. These have resulted in increased conflict and competition among the various users of what has been dwindling resource and between them and the managers of that resource.
As I have stated in the House on several occasions, since the values and benefits flow from the resource, then on behalf of all Canadians, present and future, my first responsibility is to the state of the resource. Only by serving this responsibility can I fulfil my responsibility to those who depend on it and who may depend on it in the future. This, then, is the first of the issues.
In view of the risks, complexities and costs involved in the alternatives, it is quite apparent to me that Canada's wild or natural stocks of Pacific salmon must be rebuilt. This could be simply left to occur naturally or could be given a helping hand, depending on time and abundance targets. But it is a simple truth that it cannot be achieved without the reduction in the harvest or exploitation rate of these natural stocks. My objective is to rebuild Canada's natural stocks of Pacific salmon as nearly as possible to historical levels and optimum sustainable yield. I am currently in the process of concluding consultations with the user groups as to targets and scope, methodology and timing.
In this debate I am most anxious to have Hon. Members opposite state their position on these matters. In a nutshell, they should please come up with proposals if they have any.
While there have been many contributing causes of the state of decline in salmon stocks, Commissioner Pearse in his study found that the principal cause has been something that everybody knows about, over-fishing. This is turn has been due in large part to the excessive economic demands of over-capacity in an over-capitalized commercial fleet. Even over-fishing has been unable to allay the economic decline caused by the financial requirements of this over-capitalized and excessive capacity.
It is therefore equally clear to me that the size and capacity of the commercial fleet must be reduced. The Government fully intends to introduce measures which will result in the substantial reduction in the size of the commercial fleet and we are currently in the process of concluding consultations with the user groups as to targets and scale, configuration, methodology and timing.
In this debate I am most anxious to hear the Opposition state its policy in these respects in order that its views can be taken into account along with those of the various user groups.
Supply
I am also anxious to have the user groups hear a clear statement of the policies, positions and ideas of the Official Opposition.
My bottom line, Mr. Speaker, is that we must put an end to the over-fishing of the stocks of British Columbia. This is my bottom line. We have to stop the over-fishing. We must rebuild the stocks. There are several ways of doing that but one thing is for sure-that must be the first step, the premise of all our policies.
It is also quite obvious that, due in part to the nature of human interaction between resource users and resource managers, along with a variety of other factors, the best efforts of present management and regulatory arrangements have not been successful in preventing or precluding the present crisis and dilemma in Pacific salmon fishing.
The Government has conducted extensive reviews, studies and analyses of all the various aspects of these management and regulatory arrangements. We are currently in the process of concluding consultations with the user groups through the MAC about whether changes in these arrangements might be made to improve the present situation and prevent its recurrence and, if so, the nature, extent and rate of implementation of such changes.
I can tell you that we have used the intervening time wisely to develop a reasonable rate of alternatives which are this very day being discussed in Vancouver by the senior management of the Department, my senior policy adviser with the MAC. Nevertheless, in this debate I am also yearning to hear the outpouring from the idea bank on the other side of the House of some concrete suggestions which will simultaneously provide for-and I beg you to listen-first, increased control of catch; second, reduced cost of fishing; third, selectivity of mixed stock fishing; fourth, adjustment of catch between year types; Fifth, removal of incentives to over-capitalization; sixth, increased resource rent to the people of Canada; seventh, deterrence from the cost of racing to compete for the common property resource; and eighth, increases in escapements to the spawning grounds.
Obviously, the Opposition would like to have its cake and eat it too. We have taken the time to consult with the user groups. We have taken the time to analyse and to think these complex issues through and to develop a range of realistic, effective alternatives. These are on the table to be discussed with the MAC today and tomorrow and further final consultation is already scheduled.
While we are not very much interested in acrimonious debate or in spurious crass political posturing, we are genuinely concerned with the interests of those who depend now and will in the future depend on the Pacific salmon resource. We would therefore be very pleased indeed to be dazzled by the foresight of Hon. Members opposite in setting out clearly their own position on these issues as well. We would welcome a

February 3, 1984
Supply
statement on their specific fisheries policy. I suspect, however, that they are once again a dollar short and a day late.
Our range of alternatives has already been distributed to the members of MAC under covering letter dated Tuesday, January 31, 1984, but we will be pleased to consider any productive inputs the Opposition may wish to make in the debate.
Among the other issues on which we are anxious to hear the Opposition is their specific fishery policy as it relates to native Indians. We would like them to tell us clearly whether they favour measures to increase native economic benefits through commercialization of all or any part of the so-called food fishery. We would like very much to have them tell us clearly and out loud, and to tell the native and non-native people of Canada, particularly those from British Columbia, what their policy is and what their recommendations to us are regarding native Indian participation in the commercial fishery.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but I must advise him that his time has expired.


Some Hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement to allow the Minister to continue briefly?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, may I thank Members on all sides for their courtesy.
On behalf of the Government I have made my policy views very clear in a well publicized speech to the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia. I have engaged in consultations with Indian leaders. I have made funds available and have encouraged B.C. Indian leaders and organizations to confer and consult among themselves and their respective constituencies. I have ended discriminatory fish mutilation requirements, put in place a special directorate in the Pacific region headed by Mr. Hikle, himself an Indian, to interface on a daily direct basis with Indian groups. We have implemented pilot test programs. We have studied and developed a range of alternatives on these issues which have already been distributed to the MAC for consultations and discussions.
This opposition Party, whose political integrity seems to be slipping daily, has the unprecedented temerity to condemn this Government for not acting. Once again, Mr. Speaker, this Government has had the courage to tackle the truly difficult issues. It has done so quietly and properly, with full respect for the magnitude of the issues and with a recognition of and concern for, the long-term impacts of those most affected. I have clearly and publicly committed myself to give due consideration and importance to the recreational fishery of British Columbia, the sport fishery.
In response to the representations made by the Sport Fishery Advisory Board, on behalf of nearly 400,000 B.C. sports fishermen-which does not include the 75,000 British Columbians younger than 16 years of age-and on behalf of the marina resort and charter operators, equipment and tackle manufacturers and distributors, and suppliers of tourist services, we have undertaken exclusive studies and analyses of the social and economic impact of this growing and increasingly significant segment of the Pacific fishery. We have developed a range of possible initiatives aimed at enhancing both the quality of the experience and the positive economic impact of it.
There is no doubt, Mr. Speaker, according to all the experts I have consulted, that British Columbia is among the best recreational sport fishery facilities and fishing grounds in the world. It is absolutely unequalled. We have begun a fuller examination of the economic development and employment-creation potential offered by this activity to both native and non-native coastal communities. Again, a range of possible initiatives has been developed for discussion and consultation.
We recognize that until a matter of only a few days ago, B.C. members of the Tory Opposition were not even aware of the extent of participation, nor the economic significance of the B.C. sports fishery; but we would ask that Party nevertheless to state its views on the role of the B.C. sports fishery in overall Pacific fisheries policies. Is that Party aware that about 37 per cent of all person-years of employment generated by Canada's Pacific salmon fishery are estimated to be generated by the sport fishery on the basis of about 4 per cent of the catch?


Donald W. Munro: When did you learn that?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We have it over here, too.


Pierre De Bané: We are anxious to hear, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure are many of the constituents of the Members opposite, what their proposals are for the sport fishery.
Finally, I would like to inform the Hon. Members opposite that I have taken steps throughout the period since Dr. Pearse completed his report to encourage the various sectors of the Pacific fishery to work together productively. I have met personally with the MAC. This Government has made certain that sectoral representatives have been given time, the necessary resources and the opportunity to consider the issues, not the least of which is the consultative process. I recently authorized funds for necessary travel, accommodation and the cost of a professional facilitator of their own choosing to assist in the development of proposals for an improved consultative process.
I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that even under the existing structure, given just this encouragement, opportunity and support-and perhaps with mild prodding offered indirectly through my staff and officials-this sector has on its
February 3, 1984____________________________COMMONS DEBATES________________________________________________1061
Supply
own made monumental strides forward in its ability to overcome and override many of the differences inherent in its diverse, composite make-up.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, this condemnation by the Conservatives is also a downright insult to those sectoral representatives who have persevered through the pains of an extremely difficult growth and development state and, needless to say, I reject it outright. Indeed, by contrast, I take this opportunity to congratulate those participants, even if they continue to be concerned and apprehensive about the immediate impacts of a restructuring they recognize as necessary. I thank them for their dedication on behalf of their respective memberships. I thank my officials as well for their role in fostering and co-operating with that process.
This process and approach to issues of this magnitude may not be perfect, and it may not reflect the kind of political grandstanding by which Flon. Members opposite measure their own standards of performance, but it reflects a caring, careful, responsible and progressive approach to problems of great magnitude besetting a sector of the Canadian economy which, unfortunately, and because of its coincidence with other factors, has been one of the most severely victimized by the recent worldwide economic recession.
This is why, Mr. Speaker, I did not hesitate last week to express publicly our dissatisfaction with the way the United States has governed its negotiations with us. I have made it public that we cannot accept its backtracking on concessions which have already been made. To think that I am going to impose restraints on Canadians while it is going to allow its own fishermen to fish without restraint is absolutely unacceptable. This, Mr. Speaker, has been a responsible approach by a responsible Government. We are anxious to hear a responsible proposition from a responsible Opposition, not the unfounded mewlings of desperation, nor the crass political posturing and obsession with power. Does the Opposition believe that the Minister's Advisory Council will believe that yesterday's motion, which was brought to my attention at six o'clock p.m., is the proper way to advise this House of the importance of that debate, choosing a Friday afternoon when most Hon. Members go back to their homes and constituencies, and on the eve of the arrival of a very important delegation?


Donald W. Munro: Parliament sits from Monday to Friday.


Pierre De Bané: Members opposite had three years, Mr. Speaker, to bring forward that debate. Do they think the delegation next week will be so naive as to fail to see through this empty exercise? Do they think the Canadian people will be duped by this no account charade, much less impressed with the Tory policy of no policy? We on this side of the House think not, Mr. Speaker, and we reject entirely their false and unfounded condemnation. The condemnation which is really called for, Mr. Speaker, is a condemnation of the use by the
Opposition of this blatantly crass, transparent and wrinkled-up, old play. In this debate we ask Hon. Members opposite very simply and directly to give us substance or silence.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I appreciate Hon. Members want to put questions or comments. Nevertheless, may I be allowed to make an observation at this point? I believe it is incumbent upon the Chair to comment. The House generously extended time to the Hon. Minister basically to conclude his remarks. Of course, I do not want to single the Minister out on this occasion. However, I feel it is the Chair's duty, nevertheless, to recall to all Hon. Members that when time is extended, the Hon. Member should, as quickly as possible, come to a conclusion of his remarks. That is the general idea of the courtesy. In this instance, the speech went on for another 10 minutes. I believe, if I may be allowed to say so-and I invite Hon. Members to reflect on my comments-that may be a slight abuse of the courtesy of an extension of time. Questions and comments.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted, of course, to ask the Hon. Minister, who is unduly upset today, just which Party has been the Government for most of the years during which the salmon stocks in British Columbia have declined to these very severe and difficult levels. The Minister knows the answer to that, and so do we all. I have to ask him this question. He says that by raising this issue in the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, we are insulting all those people who have supported his consultative efforts. He says that he and the Government he represents should not stand condemned. Let me read to him from the report of Dr. Pearse, whom the Minister's predecessor commissioned, and Commissioner Pearse's comments on the policies of the Minister's Government and ask him if he agrees with them. In Chapter 1, page 3 of the Pearse report, Dr. Pearse said:
The lack of cohesive, consistent and forward-looking policies and programs with respect to fisheries management, enhancement and environmental protection is the single most important criticism of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans' activities on the Pacific Coast.
The Department's policies are listed as being passive or reactive rather than purposeful. Dr. Pearse quotes witnesses who appeared in front of him who said:
It is obvious to us that Fisheries management and fish will continue to lose under a continuation of the reactive system.
At present, who amongst us can truthfully say what is the objective of the fisheries?
What has been lacking is a comprehensive long-term plan that specified particular goals-
The myriad of special problems that are facing the Pacific fisheries today ... have arisen from a lack of policy and firm practices-
I ask the Minister whether he agrees with that criticism and whether he thinks that, while his Government was in power, the Opposition could have done anything about the accusations

February 3, 1984
Supply
brought against his Government, not by us but by the thousands of people who appeared in front of Dr. Pearse? It is Dr. Pearse's accusations and those of the people who appeared in front of him that the Minister is so upset about having to answer here this afternoon.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear: I welcome the debate. What I find most despicable is the circumstances in which it was planned. To give us notice on Thursday night that they would like to use the time of the House today for that debate is not in my opinion the proper way to gain credibility and show that they are not ones to play tricks on the backs of the Pacific coast fishermen. This is not the way to give proper consideration. There are no Canadians foolish enough to think that this way of doing things is proof of any genuine concern for the plight of our fishermen. I welcome the debate but I do not welcome the tricks.
As to the question of the faults with the Department as found by Dr. Pearse, it is precisely because I accept Dr. Pearse's criticism that I pleaded with Treasury Board for, and received, over 70 man-years to increase those management functions where Dr. Pearse found the Department at fault. Precisely because I do concur with those of his recommendations for the Department to improve its performance, I pleaded the case and I got the necessary man-years.
I would also ask my hon. friend not to read Dr. Pearse's report selectively. Dr. Pearse said there are many causes for the collapse of the stock on the Pacific coast. He says that, all in all, by far the most important reason is the overfishing by the people themselves.


John Allen Fraser: You let it happen.


Pierre De Bané: Well, you see-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. This period provides for 10 minutes of questions and comments. We are already half way through and only one question has been put and one reply given. I think it is fair to other Members who want to put questions that I recognize them at this time.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is no doubt aware of the work of the international Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission. He has made a very strong political statement regarding his inability to negotiate with the Americans or their inability to negotiate with the Minister. The Minister sits on top of a Department which this year is requesting or spending a budget of some $640 million. He says the fisheries stocks are depleting at a compound rate of 1.5 per cent per annum. He says something very strong and drastic has to be done, and I agree.
As I said, his budget this year is some $640 million. In the years from 1937 to 1982-83, the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission has received from the two Governments a total of $31 million. If the Minister looks at the Commission's 1982 report he will find that in all areas the escapement and return have increased except in the Stewart area. How is it that a commission with a very stringent budget, zero-based and smothered and strangled, is able to do such magnificent work in terms of delivery or harvest when the Minister and his officials on the West Coast, with all the money they have ever needed, cannot do the same?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Hon. Member is very happy with the performance of the Commission and I am ready to join with him. But may I remind him also that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, under the leadership of this Government, has already spent a staggering amount of money to launch this program, which has certainly brought a lot of benefits toward increasing the B.C. salmon stocks. In that I think-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A staggering amount of money.


Pierre De Bané: Well, what I am saying is that several solutions have to be used, one is not enough. I think all of them must be used. Obviously by far the best is restraint in the fishing effort. I am ready to work with all the different participants to improve the situation of the B.C. fishery.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Minister mentioned that his officials are meeting the ministerial-


James Douglas Manly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) was up for a question.


Donald W. Munro: So was I.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I will recognize the Hon. Member who is already speaking and then I will recognize the Hon. Member for a question.


Donald W. Munro: My question will be short;
I do not know whether the Minister's answer will be short. I implore the Minister to give the Hon. Member an opportunity.
The Minister's officials are meeting the MAC today. If he is not prepared today to say what gear types he is planning to reduce, at what rate and at what cost, will he table in the House next week the results of that discussion so that we will know?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Chairman, at last the Opposition is becoming sensible. What we are doing today with the MAC and what we will be doing at the next meeting is to put before them all the different issues we think are relevant in the Pacific fishery, as well as all the different options. What we are asking them at this moment, is have we properly identified all the issues or have we forgotten any? If we have covered all the issues, do you agree that the options we have put before you are all the realistic options?
February 3, 1984

This is the stage at which we are at the moment. Then of course Cabinet will have to go through its deliberations. I hope that in the very near future the decision of Cabinet will be made public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: As the question period is finished, would the House agree that we extend it somewhat to allow the Hon. Member to speak? There was some misunderstanding as to who was going to get the floor. Do I have consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleagues in the House for their consent. The Minister's speech today was one of the great condemnations of the way this Government functions in the fishing industry, rather than a valid defence of the policy of the Government. We have had nothing from the Government other than delay. In three years we have had one other opportunity to debate fisheries in the House in terms of another motion moved by the NDP and one minor Bill. We have had no opportunity to really discuss in any detail the matter of fisheries in the House. The way that the Government functions in the fishing industry is through Orders in Council and regulations. We have no opportunity to debate them. When I requested some time ago that the Minister table in the House the Pearse report, the Kirby report, and the Cruickshank report so the committee could deal with this issue in some detail, he refused to table them. Today he indicated that on January 31 another working paper went to the MAC. This is another committee which functions in secrecy, not only from the rest of the House of Commons but from its own membership.
In view of the Minister's request in his speech today for some input from the Opposition Parties to help resolve a very serious crisis in British Columbia, would he be prepared to table in the House his proposals to the MAC of January 31 so that the Fisheries and Forestry Committee can function with those recommendations as well as the MAC? Will he make that information public?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give proper consideration to the suggestions of the Hon. Member. If there is no objection, I will gladly make it public as quickly as possible.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise in debate, even on a Friday afternoon, to discuss an issue which is very critical to the British Columbia fishermen. I was not aware of the debate until this morning when I looked at the Order Paper and saw that, as the Fisheries critic for the NDP, 1 was going to take part in a debate. In fact, I arrived from British Columbia at 10.30 last night simply because that was part of my schedule. I could
Supply
have easily missed this debate. I share the Minister's concern that we did not have very much notice that this important debate was going to occur.
1 agree that the Official Opposition has some responsibility to lay out some of its proposals in terms of what it sees for the British Columbia fishing industry. Although I have a lot of confidence in my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), when he sets his own fisheries policy, I do not have the same kind of confidence in his Party. Although I can support much of what he has outlined as his policy today in the House, I am not certain that that is the kind of economic and Fisheries policy we would find coming from a new Government.
In the headlines yesterday we saw that the Progressive Conservative Party is already developing a hit list of members in Government and Crown corporations. I anticipate that those on the hit list will simply be replaced by Progressive Conservative Party hacks. I am not confident that a change in Government and a change in officials in agencies of the Government is going to have any effect on the fishing industry and the policies set forward there.
There are some questions we should be asking the Progressive Conservative Party. That Party is committed to private industry and therefore privatization of some of the Crown corporations. We can look at the fishing industry and some of the concerns that Fishermen have been expressing as a result of ad hoc Liberal policies in terms of future use of hatcheries. It is not too difficult to believe that the Progressive Conservative Party might concern itself with privatizing some of the hatcheries or spawning channels and turning those over to its friends in the corporate sector. Can you imagine Amway running the Robertson Creek or Capilano hatcheries? I, Mr. Speaker, believe that that is possible.
The other aspects of the fishing industry that we are concerned about, if the Progressive Conservative Party achieves the position of Government which it is anticipating at the moment, are the questions of maximizing profits and reducing budget deficits. Would the Progressive Conservative Party be looking at terminal Fisheries? We know that they would be more cost efficient, but that is not going to encourage any confidence in the fishermen of British Columbia who at the moment are struggling for their livelihood. Would the Progressive Conservatives consider a terminal Fishery, reducing the troll fishery and gill-net fleet significantly in favour of the larger, more overcapitalized seiners, and therefore drastically reducing the number of fishermen in the industry and thus affecting coastal communities? What is the commitment of the Progressive Conservative Party to employment opportunities in the coastal communities in British Columbia? I do not think that has been adequately answered. What would the Conservatives do in terms of their relationship with Alcan and the Kenano completion project, or, as it is more aptly called by the United Fishermen and Allied Workers, the Kenano deple-

February 3, 1984
Supply
tion project? This project could increase the potential on four British Columbian rivers from the present 3.7 million salmon now produced to a potential of 34.4 million as outlined by a Department of Fisheries and Oceans report. The potential will certainly not be 34.4 million if the Government of British Columbia and the federal Government's Department of Fisheries and Oceans allow the Kenano depletion project to go ahead.
In the short time the Progressive Conservatives were in power their record did not show a great deal of difference in policy toward the fishing community. There were bank rate increases four times under the Finance Minister in the Progressive Conservative Government. There was a policy then of allowing the industry to struggle under the burden of high interest rates. It was only compounded when we had the re-election of a Liberal Government. The policy on energy prices which concerns fishermen in terms of the cost of going fishing is no different in the Liberal or the Conservative Party. There is not a great deal of satisfaction on the part of fishermen in anticipating a new Government.
The whole question of the B.C. fishing industry has been in the fore in British Columbia for a number of years. We are disappointed that it has taken so long to deal with the Pearse report which has been tabled for well over a year. Many of the recommendations in that report were totally in opposition to the desires of the fishing industry. There was some recognition that some changes had to be made.
This morning I received a telegram from Mr. Erik Larsen, the Mayor of the beautiful coastal community of Ucluelet on the West Coast. This telegram sums up the concerns that the New Democratic Party has in terms of fisheries policy and changes to that policy. It reads:
I have today sent telegrams to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans requesting them to review present and proposed policies regarding the fishing industry, with the industry and communities affected. Privatization of the resource, halting of the Salmonid Enhancement Program, mandatory instead of voluntary buy back program, lack of control over depredation of the resource by other countries, and a proposed harvesting in terminal fisheries only spell economic disaster to Ucluelet and many coastal communities dependent on the fishing industry. Widespread unemployment and social upheaval will result. We urge you to take all steps possible to see there is more consideration given these facts before new policies are allowed.
That sums up the concern of many people in British Columbia, whether they be fishermen, individuals in processing plants, or simply individuals dependent upon the fishing industry in communities and services to those communities.
The Minister is correct when he says that the Opposition Parties have some duty to outline their proposals. There is no doubt that the electorate, in anticipating an election sometime this year, will be asking those questions. The New Democratic Party has certainly been prepared to enunciate those policies which we have developed in consultation with people in our communities and organizations that represent fishermen. We
have been willing to attend any meetings to which we have been invited and we have certainly thrown our doors open in Ottawa to meet with fishermen at any time they have wanted to come here to lobby. We welcome those fishermen who are coming next week.
There is obviously a great need to continue the Salmonid Enhancement Program. The dependence on the industry in employment, economic health and viability in coastal communities and major centres in British Columbia depends on a growing resource, not a declining one. The NDP has and will continue to suggest that the Salmonid Enhancement Program continue to be funded. In fact, if the Government wants specifics, we see the need for an additional $200 million over the next five years for salmonid enhancement.
I urge the Minister to be somewhat concerned about the success rate of the major hatcheries and the cause of major fisheries on those hatchery stock, which are undercutting the viability of the wild stocks associated with runs of major hatchery stocks. Our suggestion to the Minister is that new changes in salmonid enhancement be directed to small streams, rivers and estuaries and that a particular effort be made to improve the coho and chinook stocks, which are particularly important to the West Coast troll fishery, the Gulf trollers and the sports and recreational fishery which are so dependent on those two sports fish.
An increase in the Salmonid Enhancement Program funding and a commitment to it is the key to encouraging not only the preservation of stocks but their increase as well. In order to achieve this during a period of economic decline, which puts an additional pressure on fishermen to exploit the resource by taking as much as they need to enable them to pay off high mortgages on vessels or a home, we must also take into consideration some of the problems of enforcement. The Minister should seriously consider increasing the enforcement in British Columbia not only on the commercial fishery but on native fisheries and the sports fishery. Without proper enforcement there is the possibility of violations of fisheries regulations and the undermining of salmonid enhancement projects and the benefits they may bring.
The Minister made a great deal of the consultative process. While we in the NDP support any consultation that is possible in the fishing industry, we think it is important that commercial fishermen, sports fishermen and native fishermen as well as coastal communities have representation on ministerial advisory committees or management boards. We believe that those boards and advisory committees must be open to public scrutiny. It is no longer sufficient for such a consultative group to be responsible only to the Minister, with no minutes being published of those consultations or any suggestions as to what the people of British Columbia are looking for in recommendations. Not only is the public unaware of what the Ministerial Advisory Committee is discussing, many members of those
February 3, 1984

organizations represented on MAC are in the dark as well. Certainly Parliament has no access to that information.
The question of accountability in the fishing industry is a major concern. For the last year and a half we have known that the Minister has been consulting with the industry, but we still see no recommendations that are suitable to the fishing industry and no indication of where the Minister and his Government feel priority should be placed. For instance, will we indeed see a major reduction in the fishing industry in the commercial fleet, as the Minister suggested in his speech today? Has he decided how that will impact on coastal communities in employment opportunities in the B.C. fishing industry and whether that will lead to more unemployment insurance and human resources demands in the Province of British Columbia?
The NDP puts employment opportunities as a top priority in the fishing industry. If there will be a reduction in the fleet, we have indicated that the suggestion by the Ministerial Advisory Committee of a 20 per cent reduction is a beginning, if that is in fact what it is recommending. The Cruickshank report, which specifically outlines reductions in the fleets, takes into consideration concerns about employment and habitat. The recommendations of Cruickshank for a 21 per cent reduction in fleet, with specific gear types being mentioned, is a good starting point for taking some of the pressure off the fisheries resource, which we all recognize is seriously depleted, partially because of overfishing.
The access to resources is an important issue. The Minister mentioned the problems that his Ministry is having in deciding on adequate allocation of those resources. The first priority is to make sure that those resources are maintained and enhanced. This can be achieved through better management, habitat protection, salmonid enhancement and, to some extent, through reducing the size of the fleet in the commercial sector. This is also accomplished by getting some agreement between user groups in terms of their own access to that resource.
Our Party supports in principle an increase in native Indian involvement in the fishing industry, whether that is through increased activity in the commercial fishery or through increased opportunity in mariculture and aquaculture. I am not suggesting ocean ranching or fish farming. Certainly mariculture in resources such as oysters, muscles, clams and seaweeds on the West Coast, where native Indian reserves are strategically located to take advantage of them, is an industry that Canada, both federally and provincially, has failed to exploit or to initiate adequate activities.
There are number of other issues I wish to discuss briefly in the limited time I have today. The Minister indicated his willingness last week to tell the Americans that this Government was no longer going to continue negotiations in Seattle. I congratulate the Minister for taking that stand. We were certainly concerned that Canada was again going to back down to American pressure over Canadian stocks and there-
Supply
fore deplete employment opportunities in British Columbia even further.


An Hon. Member:: It has happened before.


Edward Allan Miller: It has happend in 1971 when we went into those negotiations on the basis that the nations involved would catch their own fish and limit interception as much as possible. We have strayed from that principle, and I would suggest to the Minister that another policy which he could adopt from the NDP would be to return to the 1971 principle. That principle is that, as much as possible, Canadians should catch Canadian-raised salmon while U.S. fishermen should as much as possible catch fish raised in American rivers.
We are also concerned about Canadian-Japanese negotiations. Part of the submission that we will receive from British Columbia next week indicates that the high seas fishery is a major threat to Canadian stocks of coho and chinook in particular. The high seas fishery is run basically by Japanese fishermen using nine-mile long gill nets, if one can imagine that. Their fishery involves four factory ships, 43 gill-net vessels, for a total of some 1,548 miles of net on the high seas. The catch is estimated at over seven million fish, of which 107,000 is chinook and 1.2 million is coho. There is no tagging program which would indicate how many of those fish were Canadian and how much of that resource Canadian fishermen are losing as a result of the high seas fishing.
The Minister should take the responsibility of meeting with U.S. elected officials, senators and governors from Alaska, Washington and Oregon, as well as in Washington, D.C., to initiate some resolution to a very serious problem. British Columbians know that we require a salmon agreement with the United States. They are becoming afraid that if that agreement does not occur very soon, Canadian stocks of chinook and coho in particular will meet even greater threats to their very existence.
We should also encourage the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to make some approaches to the Government of British Columbia, a government which refuses to set up a ministry of fisheries and oceans or a ministry of fisheries so that there can be consultation between the Province of British Columbia and the federal Government. Without adequate agreements between the federal Government and the Government of British Columbia, a government which is practising restraint, cutting back on the salmonid enhancement investment, a government which is not very much committed to habitat protection, we will suffer further declines in habitat protection. Also there will be a further deterioration in the ability of the Salmonid Enhancement Program to produce fish for the commercial, native and sports fisheries, and there will be a continuation of secrecy between the federal Government and the Ministerial Advisory Committee.

February 3, 1984
Supply
Mr. Minister, you have been charged with a responsibility for a very important resource in British Columbia-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. While it is perfectly reasonable for the Minister to listen to what the Hon. Member has to say, the Hon. Member must address the Chair.


Edward Allan Miller: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Obviously I got carried away in my eagerness to relate to the Minister the fact that we have some solutions which would be acceptable to the fishing industry in British Columbia, from the point of view of maintaining employment opportunities, of protecting habitat and increasing the amount of salmon available.
If the Minister is serious about obtaining the co-operation of the Opposition Parties, he should look seriously at tabling documents in the House of Commons so that we can deal in some detail with his recommendations and those of the Ministerial Advisory Committee, the Sports Fishery Advisory Committee and others, in committee, not only in Ottawa but with the possibility of dealing with some of these very serious problems in the Province of British Columbia.


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


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to take the high road right from the beginning of my comments, but there were two developments today which I find I just cannot pass by without comment. The first occurred just before lunch when the NDP tried to eliminate this debate today by seeking unanimous consent for another motion which was defeated yesterday.


An Hon. Member:: On disarmament.


Donald W. Munro: My other comment relates to the abuse the Minister made of his time. He was given extra time at the end of his 20 minutes. He may not realize it but the first nine minutes of his speech-and I timed him-were taken up with castigating the Opposition, particularly my Party. I think that is disgraceful. It is an abusive use of the Minister's time, and I am sorry he did it.
1 would like to turn to the matters at issue because we were all disturbed over the weekend to learn that we are facing this debate in front of a rather ominous background.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not mind the Hon. Member criticizing me for having objected to the secrecy in bringing this matter to debate. However, does he think it is proper that the official spokesman for the NDP learned by accident only this morning that this was the topic for debate? Does he think that by hiding the agenda so that he learned of it only this morning by chance-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister should know that that is hardly a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: That was not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: But a point well made.


Donald W. Munro: The procedure was followed last evening. The motion was put down by five o'clock; 1 am sure of that.
Last weekend we learned to our dismay that the Minister had broken off talks with the United States on the Pacific salmon fisheries. For those who know anything about our West Coast fisheries, this is bad news. The talks were aimed at apportioning the catch in such a way that it can be managed to the advantage of both countries. The Canadian side blames the Americans; the Americans, no doubt, blame the Canadians for wanting to grab too much. It is on both sides; I suppose that is normal. I am not being critical. I am just suggesting that this debate is being held in those critical circumstances and that it is unfortunate.
The consequences of this breakdown are serious. 1 hope to come back to it in a moment, but meanwhile I want to put some facts on the record to indicate the magnitude of the problem because, as my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), stated in his remarks, "It is impossible to manage a fishery without everyone involved understanding just what the facts are". That is a direct quotation from his comments earlier in this debate.
The North Pacific Fisheries Commission publishes figures of the salmon catch regularly. For 1979-and I am talking of salmon only-Canada caught just over 23.5 million fish; Japan caught something a little over 60 million; and the United States, which of course has the Gulf of Alaska area in which to catch a great many of its fish, caught about 99.5 milion fish. Yet, according to news reports of the break in the negotiations between Canada and the United States, it was Canada which was expected to cut back on the catch. Those are facts. They illustrate and underline the extent of the problem with which we are confronted.
Pacific salmon are strange creatures. They are born in fresh water. They go out to sea and live inshore for the early part of their lives as smolts. Then they venture further and further out into the Pacific in a wide migration and return at their allotted time-and the allotted time is not the same for all species-to their natal stream, sometimes as far as 700 miles or more inland, to lay their eggs and die. They are quite different from Atlantic salmon. In the course of that migration, lasting anywhere from two years to Five years, again depending upon the species, they go out as far as the International Date Line, 180 degrees, and as far north as deep inside the Gulf of Alaska. There are records of a tagged steelhead, for example, having been released west of the Date Line, on the Japanese-
February 3, 1984

Soviet side of the Date Line, well out beyond Hawaii and in a latitude about that of the California-Oregon border, and finding its way back 18 months later to a stream leading off the Columbia River. There are other instances of this sort that provide some of the mystery, 1 suppose, with which we are dealing.
I commend a publication, which I was fortunate enough to find, to those who are interested in the salmon. It is a book entitled, The Salmon, Their Fight for Survival. The author is Netboy, and it is to be found in the Library. There is a story about the vicissitude of the B.C. fisheries. It is a sad story in many ways, but we find in it the strange behaviour of the B.C. fish. Their lifecycles vary. Some fish wander out, as I said, beyond the International Date Line and then, by some strange process, find their way back to the very place where they were born, where they lay their eggs, where their eggs are fertilized by the male of the species, and where they die. The same study, this book by Netboy, describes in lurid detail how the California salmon fishery died. It was once a great fishery and, for a variety of reasons, came to an end. On the basis of statistics published by the Pacific Fisheries Commission, salmon catches over the last 25 years have fluctuated from a high of about 250 million to a low of about 150 million. With the critical decline even in the high years, and it alternated with one year high and one year low, they came down to about 200 million fish. This has caused the fish watchers, the fishermen and the Fisheries Department to worry. There is some reason for us to worry that our salmon stocks are going to become so depleted that in history we will find that they will have suffered the fate of the California stocks.
The depletion of stocks on the West Coast is not, and I insist on this, attributable only to the fishermen. The solution of this Government is for the fishermen to cut down, that they reduce the gear types in one way or another. There are a number of other causes.
When man interferes with nature's ecological balance, damage can occur unless great care is taken by exploiters of one resource to foresee the damage that their exploitational efforts might have on the other resources within that balance. The balance to which I refer is the balance that is being disturbed by man, not by the natural predators on the salmon stocks, the seals and other sea mammals such as sea otters, not to mention the feather and fur-covered ones, the eagles and the bears, which take their share of fish at sea or from the inland streams. That balance can be preserved and would be preserved if man's activities related to the fish and in other areas were more carefully controlled, regulated and balanced.
I might mention mining and the silting up of stream beds where salmon lay their eggs or the poisonous contamination of streams by mining operations, both mining and milling, preventing salmon from reaching their natal place where they
Supply
have to lay their eggs. I might mention forestry operations and their effect on salmon streams which cannot be ignored, whether by blocking streams with slash, with noxious effluents from paper milling and from loosening up topsoil without proper reforestation which causes additional silting. Hydroelectric developments also affect this balance.
There are the offshore drilling possibilities that are not too far in the future. Under improperly controlled conditions, they could cause great harm to fish stocks. There are different reasons, but I just mention one. A blowout could cut off the oxygen supply and perhaps screen out some of the beneficial sun's rays.
There is, then, an ecosystem within which our salmon stocks have to survive. We have tampered with that ecosystem. We must be sure that in future our tampering is carried out in such a manner as to ensure that our salmon stocks do not disappear and that the other activities which are essential to man may also continue. That can only be done through co-operation and co-ordination.
All of these influences, marine predators, human and otherwise, mining, lumber, hydroelectric development and petroleum exploration, and the fishermen themselves of course, can bore in on our salmon stocks and deplete them unless we ensure that exploitation is carefully regulated and contamination kept to a minimum, if not indeed eliminated entirely by the removal of harmful components. Surely it is not beyond the ingenuity of man to effect the needed co-ordinating effort.
The fishermen are not the only culprits. We, of course, are culprits too. Let us look at ourselves. We eat the product that the fishermen catch. We provide the demand, they supply it. We should not be focusing solely on the fishermen. They would not deliberately destroy their livelihood. Who would? We need greater all-round co-operation and co-ordination of effort if we and our fish are to survive the human onslaught.
Against that background, and I mentioned this earlier, we had news that the negotiations had broken down between Canada and the United States on the West Coast salmon fishery. This is indeed a distressing development. It could mean an even more disastrous assault on our Pacific salmon stocks by fishermen of one country or the other, possibly even by both, in an effort to stake out claims or simply to take advantage of an unregulated situation.
That is the situation inshore, so to speak, within Canada's territorial waters, Canada's exclusive zone. No such settlement has yet been reached to define the boundaries between Canadian and American EEZs, Exclusive Economic Zones, either off the southern tip of Vancouver Island or beyond the line which runs a little north of Prince Rupert. I hope that in this period when no negotiations are going on between Canada and the United States, either on allocation of fish or on boundary lines, great care will be exercised by both countries to ensure that our salmon stocks are not completely obliterated.

February 3, 1984
Supply
It might be worth mentioning that an amendment may have to be made and incorporated into the International Convention for the High Seas Fishery of the North Pacific which came into force in June, 1953 with Canada, United States and Japan as signatories. This is pretty much of a watchdog operation, but the term used is that the convention area is determined as "water other than territorial waters in the North Pacific". The territorial waters have been redefined since that treaty was concluded. There has been an addition beyond the territorial sea and included in the Law of the Sea Convention which was concluded a year or two ago. It has not yet been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to be brought into effect. Here we run into a further complication. The nation with which our conversations have broken off has decided for one reason or another that it should not sign or ratify the Law of the Sea Treaty.
Be that as it may, we should take comfort in the North Pacific Fisheries Convention, even in its present form. It provides a mechanism for managing fish stocks of all kinds, not just salmon. The commission established under this convention was set up to collect and study data by the three contracting parties with a view to determining, through scientific study, whether any of the stock specified in the agreement, particularly herring and salmon, are being threatened and, if so, to recommend to their respective governments joint conservation measures and to monitor compliance with these recommendations.
The convention offered another hope which has not yet been explored to my knowledge. Since our salmon stocks are being threatened from a variety of quarters, it might be worth taking advantage of an article in that convention which has never been tested. Under Article 2(a) the commission established under the convention is authorized to hold public hearings. Even more interesting is that each national section of the commission may hold public hearings in its own country. That, so far as I know, has never been done. This could well be a forum for the examination of those influences, which are descending upon our fish stock from all quarters, to determine what course we ought to take. I bring this forward as a personal suggestion and I think it is worth examining. While the text of the agreement may not be in everyone's hands I do commend it to them. It is quite simple. Article 2(9) reads "The Commission may hold public hearings. Each national section may also hold public hearings within its own country".
The Minister's Advisory Council holds its hearings in private with the Minister. Here is a method agreed upon in the early 1950s to hold public hearings to find the full impact on our fisheries from all quarters. Perhaps it is time for us to invoke the terms of that particular clause and bring it into being. The breakdown of the Canada-U.S. talks, as I have mentioned, is serious. Any solution has to take into account the unresolved matters of the definition of boundaries.
Since my time is limited, I would like to bring these remarks to a conclusion and not abuse the time of the House, as was
done by the Minister. I would, however, say this. Let us send our colleagues from the House to the meeting that might be convened under the International North Pacific Commission. Let us remind those colleagues going to Puerto Rico next month with the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group to urge there that the U.S. invoke Article 2(9) of the convention so that it, too, can bring to bear on its fisheries people the impact and the influences we fear so much. Should we fail, we may all end up without salmon, as California has done.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Are there any questions or comments?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say I am pleased to participate in this debate whether or not on short notice. In fact, I join in the comments made by both members of the NDP and the Minister himself and say that I am disappointed that notice was given the way it was. It certainly does not correspond to the urgency that one would be led to believe the Opposition attaches to this debate.
Let me say to the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) that I enjoyed his comments and his dissertation on the life and breeding habits of the salmon. I share wholeheartedly and foursquare his observation that the breakdown of discussions between Canada and the United States has inherent in it the potential for devastating effects on the salmon stocks, and I use the word "potential". But as I listened to his comments that unfortunately talks have broken down and that Canada says it was the fault of the U.S. and vice versa, I wondered for a moment whether there was a Senate seat open in Alaska, because I did not quite know what to make of them. The Hon. Member should know, and I am sure he does know-and if he does not his constituents will be very alarmed to find that out-that we had signed a treaty with the United States during the course of 1983.


Donald W. Munro: Yes.


Brian Vincent Tobin: All that remained to be done was to ratify that treaty. Canada had negotiated, as he well knows better than I, and for a number of years we had had very difficult discussions. We had signed the treaty. We hoped to ratify that treaty, and it was the Americans and even the American administration, as the Member knows, which was under pressure from Alaska for more access to ore stock, more than the stocks could bear, more catch, which refused to ratify that agreement. Canada's options were simple. Either backtrack on a treaty already signed with the United States administration, waiting to be ratified, or say, "I am sorry but on that basis we cannot proceed". Canada has done the responsible thing. We have said, "On that basis we cannot proceed". It is a move, as the Member knows, applauded by the industry, by the fishermen whose very livelihoods depend upon sound management and prevention of overfishing of that stock. It is a move, I am sure, applauded generally by his constituents. This is why I do not want to make too much of it, but I have some trouble hearing a Member, whom I know to be well briefed on these
February 3, 1984

matters, saying that he is not quite sure. At least that is the impression he left-perhaps it was the wrong impression he left inadvertently-I am not sure who is at fault; anyway there was no agreement.
Let us be very clear. A treaty was signed. We have been unable up to this point to get the United States to ratify that treaty.


Donald W. Munro: Agreed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Having said that, I am delighted to take part in this debate and to indicate my support for the efforts by the Government, by the Minister and by the people in the Department and all those who have tried to grapple with the difficult and complex problems of the Pacific fishery. More than simply saying I support the Minister and I support the Government, particularly saying that I support the Government-a sort of faceless institution-let me say that I support and have a great deal of empathy for all those people in the industry, in the unions, the fishermen, both commercial and sport, and native people and all those involved. I have a lot of empathy with the very difficult questions that confront them. We have to recognize that the salmon stock on the West Coast of Canada is currently overfished. We must all recognize that each of the players that I have named are accessing themselves to that stock. It is very difficult to say who should take less. It is very difficult to say who should pack up and leave so that first, and this is the first priority, the stock survives, and second, those who do remain to participate in the commercial end can have an economically viable livelihood.
I thought today that I would be very pleased to have the opportunity to listen to Members of the Opposition outline and present not just concrete solutions but well thought out and sincere propositions. I am sure the Minister would have found that kind of exercise useful. Perhaps other Members who follow me in the Opposition will break new ground today and actually reveal to the House some sign that they are not totally void of policy. I say that with respect. I hope they will indicate clearly to the House precisely where they stand on this very difficult, important policy issue.
To help succeeding Opposition speakers and to help focus their minds I would like to pose a number of questions to the Opposition Members. 1 am sure they would agree that the answers to this very question lie at the very heart of any effort to make certain that the valuable salmon resource of the West Coast is preserved for all time and is used to the best advantage for the benefit of all Canadians, particularly those living in British Columbia. My questions are simple and straightforward. As I indicated earlier, the answers are very difficult to find but we are attempting to find them. Do Hon. Members opposite agree with the Government that conservation and rehabilitation of the salmon resource comes first? Do they agree that efforts to reverse the decline in salmon stocks must be made now and that it is the statutory responsibility of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) to take the management steps necessary to ensure the decline is halted and reserved? Does the Opposition agree that in discussing
Supply
allocation of the right to catch salmon, we are only talking about allocation of fish which are surplus to reproductive requirements, and that it is the duty of fisheries managers to ensure the fishing industry is not subsidized by fish which are beyond that surplus, thereby making inevitable the continued decline in the resource?
Does the Opposition agree that in allocating access to those salmon which are surplus to spawning requirements, the legitimate rights of native people to fish for food has first call on the salmon resource? Do they agree that once the native fishery priority has been met, the remaining allowable catch should be allocated on the basis of maximum return both to the owners of the fish, that is the people of Canada, and to the industry which surrounds the catching effort?
If they agree that fishing and the fishing industry must have a rational economic basis, do they also understand that while the commercial fishing sector creates direct employment of about 4,200 person years based on 91 per cent of the catch, the industry, which now surrounds the sport fishery, by comparison creates about 2,430 person years of employment with only 4 per cent of the catch?
If they agree with that data, would they undertake to support the position of the Minister that the West Coast sport fishery must be given serious and sober consideration in these matters and discussions so that British Columbia and Canada can take advantage of the enormous economic opportunity which that fishery offers?
Let me pose in addition some questions to Hon. Members opposite about the commercial fishery. Do they agree with the Pearse Commission that the West Coast commercial salmon fleet ought to be reduced in size and fishing power through government intervention? Do they support Dr. Pearse's proposal of a buy-back in the order of 50 per cent? If they do not, will they tell us what they consider to be the appropriate number? Are they prepared today, since they requested this debate, to put on the table concrete measures to deal with the overcapacity of the fleet? Will their measures provide relief to hard pressed fishermen or simply an unmitigated bail-out of financial institutions?
I am sure Hon. Members opposite are taking notes of all these questions so that they can provide detailed answers to each and every one of them. I will not hold my breath, however.
I should like to focus on the questions of our native people in the commercial fishery. Does the Opposition share the Government's belief that the percentage decline in native participation in the commercial fishery must be reversed? Are they prepared to put on the table any of the concrete proposals the Minister has invited, including proposals to meet the needs of coastal native communities or to tell us how they would deal with these Canadians for whom fishing has been a way of life since before the advent of non-native settlers in that part of Canada?

February 3, 1984
Supply
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward and the Government is looking forward to learning what Hon. Members opposite have to say about changes in the way the commercial Fishery takes place. Are they in favour of measures to reduce the cost of fishing? Are they in favour of measures for ending the frantic and self-defeating race to beat other fishermen, to be the first and, perhaps, at the rate we are going, to be the last to catch fish? We would like to learn how they propose to deal with the problems of managing a common property resource, one which is owned by everyone and by no one. Are they prepared to support us in moving to a new era in which the participants have a reasonable effort, an investment, will bring a reasonable return and in which fishermen take increasing responsibility for the management measures necessary to ensure their own survival in business?
It is important that they dispel the suspicion outlined in graphic detail today that this debate, on a Friday, with no notice and on the eve of a visit by fishermen from British Columbia, who come here-


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member knows that there are rules for laying down motions for an Opposition Day. He also knows that the Government chooses the Opposition Day.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman knows that we sit here today discussing one of the most important issues before the electors of British Columbia. It is an issue that will have a profound impact depending on how we, collectively in this House, take decisions affecting lives in the Province of British Columbia. He knows we sit here with that kind of mandate, that kind of responsibility, with less than a few dozen people, on no notice. Why is that?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member, who is well and favourably known to me, is abusing the privileges of the House and the rules. I say that because it is the Government that sets the date and it set Friday as the Opposition Day. That must assume that whatever subject was chosen by the Opposition for that day was of no consequence or of no importance.
The second thing that I want to point out, with respect, is that the House knows that notice of debate is usually served on the Chair late on the previous afternoon. My friends in the NDP served notice in exactly the same way prior to a vote on a very crucial matter, namely, the testing of the Cruise missile.
I think this is just a herring, if I may put it that way, and I will not say what colour, that is being dragged into this debate, and I do not think it is worthy of the Hon. Member or his Party.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: The point is well taken. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to resume his speech on the subject.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to resume my speech on the subject but I do not presume to have it written spontaneously by Hon. Members opposite. I am not prepared
to debate who sets the Opposition Day. The Government very well set the Opposition Day, but the Government does not set the agenda nor does the Government tell the Opposition what the topic shall be. The Government did not decide, as we sat here yesterday, to have notice come across the House at five minutes past the hour of six o'clock.
I say it is important that Opposition Members dispel the suspicion-and this is nothing more in this debate than a cynical, political stunt-otherwise I fear the stunt becomes so obvious that they will pay a grave price with the Canadian public and, more important, with their own electors, the people of British Columbia, when they discover that they have been trying, for political reasons, to undermine the Government's genuine efforts and the efforts of people involved on a consultative basis in British Columbia-


Mr. Patterson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I always felt that it was not in order to impute motives. Here we have a speaker on the Government side, a Parliamentary Secretary, engaging in an effort to besmirch the activities and interests of the Opposition in order to try to save his own political hide.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, that is debate, as you well know. 1 am convinced that this is nothing more than an attempt to undermine a genuine and very difficult task undertaken by people in government and people in the fishing industry.
Fishermen in the commercial sector and the sports sector, people involved in the industry, are meeting even today on a consultative basis in an effort to deal with these very difficult problems. It is my opinion

I am entitled to give it and shall give it-that it is self-evident and obvious that this is nothing but a political game. I challenge the Hon. Members opposite once and for all to show us concrete, positive proposals. As 1 have said before many times in addressing fishery issues: Fish, gentlemen, or cut bait.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend, as I said a few moments ago, is well and favourably known to me and is not known for any particular diffidence when it comes to entering into the fray of debate. That is understandable. I do not mind the Hon. Member saying that the Opposition does not have all the answers. However, I do ask that he listen when the Opposition speaks. The Hon. Member suggested that the Opposition has had nothing to say today. I would like to ask him if he heard me discussing the necessity to have an agreed upon data base, that the fact is that hundreds of rivers cannot be analysed because of the lack of data base. Did the Hon. Member not hear me say that it was fundamental to stop the decline of stocks, to rebuild in order to maximize employment? Did he not hear me say that we had to emphasize habitat protection and enhancement, and include a principle, which I have never heard from his Party, of net gain of habitat so we can really rebuild the stocks?
I have not heard what the real position is of the Government on the common property theory. It keeps turning up in its
February 3, 1984

documents. Surely the Hon. Member heard me say that we ( reject the common property theory with respect to the salmon resource. I would hope that he heard-and I am asking him if he heard-us recommend an industry management board which could determine policy, reporting to the Minister, and which would publish that policy for accountability of both the board and the Minister. 1 ask the Hon. Member if he heard me say that a buy-back should be started now with up front money, a scheme by which royalties are phased in as those remaining in the industry can pay for it. Has he heard me say over and over again in the House that we have had two years of delay in implementing a buy-back and that we should have got on with it even if all the details of repayment could not be sorted out immediately?
I ask the Hon. Member if he heard me say today that second stage salmon enhancement program funding should be brought forward immediately to get on with small stream enhancement, and that this work should be done to provide employment for displaced fishermen and other fishermen in difficult economic circumstances, which would include the native fishermen. I have been a sport fisherman all my life. I have caught salmon, steelhead and trout. I recognize, as does everyone in British Columbia, that the sport fishing sector is part of the industry. I ask the Hon. Member if he did not hear that I included the sport fishery in all my remarks. I do not mind the Minister saying we have not answered all of the questions he posed, or answered all the details of the questions, but I would ask the Hon. Member to let the House know whether he heard anything at all of what we said this afternoon.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker-


John Allen Fraser: Just a moment. I wonder, with the consent of the House, if I could just correct-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary has the floor. Will he defer to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I believe I misled my friend inadvertently. I have just been handed a note which says that I indicated we reject the common property theory. I did not mean that. We support the common property theory and we reject any notions which would depart from that. I thank the Hon. Member for allowing me to correct that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was saved in the nick of time. I would have had great trouble squaring that with what I thought to be his position.


John Allen Fraser: I figured you heard that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is suggesting that I have said, or the Minister has said, that we are not hearing anything constructive from the Conservative Party.
Supply
Let me say to the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) personally, that I have found him to be, notwithstanding Party labels, one of the most decent men which 1 have worked with in this House, whether in committee or in any other way, shape or form. I always listen very carefully, extra carefully, Mr. Speaker, to every word he utters. I generally find that he makes great sense. In fact, I wish that I could be sure, whenever I talk to him, that the tone of his remarks reflects that of the so-called Official Opposition. I wish the Hon. Members opposite would square its approach with comments made by the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) when he says, "We are not going to tell you until after the next election", because there are fundamentally two different kinds of approach coming from that Hon. Member and from those who claim to speak for his Party.
We have heard, for example, the recommendation that there needs to be a buy-back now, immediately, that in fact we should have started two years ago. I do not believe anyone would argue that there needs to be a fleet reduction of some sort. However, saying it should be so does not answer the question of who should be bought out, and who should decide, Governments, industry or consultative groups, who gets bought out and at what price. The industry is overcapitalized. At what price, and who pays? Those are the kinds of questions, Mr. Speaker, that we have been dealing with. Those are the kinds of questions which a consultative committee has been trying to come to grips with. It is easy, but not enough, to say we will worry about the details later and will get the buy-out going now.
These three or four questions I have raised are very fundamental, and those are the kind of questions to which answers have not been forthcoming. I know we need to eradicate poverty in Canada. I know we need full employment in this country. Saying it, however, will not make it so. Having exercised my mind to come to those two simple conclusions does not make me brilliant. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am still looking for greater detail rather than simple platitudes.


John Allen Fraser: As long as you are listening.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, in his remarks the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that a maximum return was due to the people who own the resource, the people of Canada. Would the Hon. Member tell us exactly what he means by that? Is he talking about royalty, and if so, what rate of royalty? How is that to be understood?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, unlike some of my colleagues from the great Province of Newfoundland, 1 was born after 1949, which was after we joined Confederation, so I grew up being told that whether we were born in Bonavista Bay, Toronto, Winnipeg or Vancouver, we are all Canadians. Therefore, when I say that the fisheries should be utilized and managed in such a way as to bring the greatest economic return to Canadians, of course I mean those Canadians who are adjacent to that resource and, of course, I mean those Canadians in the great Province of British Columbia who have made their livelihood from that resource. What I am suggesting is that if we

February 3, 1984
Supply
accept as a first principle that the fishery as an industry should be, and can be, economically viable, then it makes sense for us as managers, and all of those involved, to try to structure an industry which will allow people who participate in it to make a living, and not merely to have put 100 per cent of their energies and time into an exercise which gives them not enough return to make a decent living and to retain some integrity, Mr. Speaker. That is all I mean, nothing more sinister, and nothing more sinister than that should be read into my remarks.


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that Members of the Official Opposition and the NDP are the only elected Members in the House of Commons representing fishermen in British Columbia. He will also be aware that we have been attempting for some time to get more involvement in decision making. His Government is using public resources to prepare studies and documentation prepared for the Minister and the Minister's Advisory Council. Would he be in favour of making that documentation available to Members of the Opposition so that we can have access to the same material that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary have in trying to sort out the fishing industry?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister said earlier, in response to a question from the same Member, that he would look into the advisability, in consultation with Members of the MAC itself, who are today looking at a number of proposals, of making that information available to Members of the Opposition. I would endeavour to do the same as far as I can.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), our official spokesman for fisheries on the West Coast. In my opinion he has done an excellent job and has served, not just his Party and caucus well on that subject matter, but the nation as a whole. I compliment him on his deliberation and intensity in that regard.
I want to take this opportunity to put on the record a few things of concern to me. The Parliamentary Secretary has been quite vociferous, and if I may say so, Mr. Speaker, vicious, in his attack and in apparently trying to draw us out and make us look as if we were bankrupt of policy. I was very pleased when my colleague from Vancouver South asked the series of questions of the Parliamentary Secretary that he did, because it is obvious that the Government does not listen to anything that is said of a constructive nature in the House.
I stand here, Mr. Speaker, in a place which 65 per cent of Canadians say is not relevant. We have the ability to talk in this place, but a very, very limited ability to listen, analyze and enter into good constructive debate. This subject matter is terribly important to those of us who come from the coastal areas of British Columbia. In fact, it is important to all Canadians, not just those of us on the coast. I am very pleased to hear that both the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary are well aware of the very good brief presented on the
economics and opportunities of the sport fishery on the coast, because that is a very valuable part of life in B.C. It has many spin-offs for the boat-building industry, boat repair, fishing tackle manufacturing, the retail industry generally, lodges and guides. The sport fishery is a very avluable industry if we want to do anything about jobs and the maintenance of a standard of living of which we can be proud.
In my questions previously, Mr. Speaker, I drew to the attention of the Minister the fact that the latest Estimates show his Department is now at a budget level of $632,565 million. Of that amount there is some $15 million or $16 million in capital outlay proposed for the building of four salmon enhancement projects. Before I get into that, Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to a meeting of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in 1977. I have photocopies of the sections we are dealing with when officials from British Columbia were in Ottawa and we were examining them concerning the West Coast fishery. Prior to that time I had been gathering in my travels up and down the coast a collection of comments and concerns about the fact that we were neglecting the protection of the species. There were areas in B.C. where you could go in and jig for herring to use as bait, or you could clean and fillet them, fry them and have a beautiful dinner. These areas have been completely wiped out of herring. When the herring disappear from the Gulf of Georgia, the salmon that enter the Gulf to return to their spawning grounds lose much of the food that fattens them into large, healthy fish for the gill-netters off the rivers in that area. There was a concern that in areas where you used to be able to fish for a ling cod, you could no longer find them. They were so short of food with the lack of herring in that area that they were forced to eat their own young. The management and protection of the species started to grow as a really serious concern to many of us who live on the coast, know and love it.
You might not know it, Mr. Speaker, but in my early university days I used to be a gill-net fisherman on the Fraser River. I have been fishing up and down the coast. Boating is a hobby of mine and I know the coast all over. I spend the summers tied up along side fishery patrol vessels, and sometimes they tie up alongside of me. So I have an intense and personal feeling and love for the coast, for the industry, the fishermen, and concern for the problems they have. There is no doubt that there is too much capital equipment on the West Coast of Canada in the fishery. We keep hearing from this Department of the federal Government which has this $632,565 million that it has to do something about the management of the resource on the West Coast because the stocks are depleting at a compound annual rate of 1.5 per cent. Its trouble, Sir, is that the Department is too fat with money. We hear about youth programs and hundreds of millions of dollars being delivered into temporary make-work programs to help the youth overcome this tragic period of unemployment. My God, Sir, I lived through that era back in the thirties. We found work. We found ways to survive. We found ways to get an education. We were not relying on anyone to give it to us. We went out and worked with our hands, hard sweat, menial
February 3, 1984

labour. A lot of us did. That is what built this country. Now we find a Department so fat with some $640 million that it finds it cannot manage the resource and, like its colleague, the Department of National Revenue, it is going to get tough and, all of a sudden, become a hard-fisted manager.
Well, back in 1977 at that committee meeting I asked the West Coast fishery managers repeatedly what they considered their most important function to be. Their answer was that the conservation of the species was their number one priority. They said that the second most important priority was the allocation of those resources among the various participants in the fishery. I asked them what was happening to the herring on the coast. They thought the herring stocks were adequate and were growing. They have been warned for 20 years that the herring stocks were being wiped out. At one time the Department of Fisheries used to allow pit lamping by the commercial vessels in the Gulf of Georgia. They used to set their purse seines around, and when they would close the purse seines and pull them in they would be full of young salmon. It was the fishermen that were screaming about the lack of management of the resource. Eventually pressure from the fishermen built up so that pit lamping no longer occurred.
I have been at the coast where fishery patrol vessels lay alongside in a period of closure, sitting fat and lazy. This is not what the fishermen want. They would rather be up a stream with their chain saws, spending half a day clearing a blockage. There is an attitudinal problem in the management of fisheries on the West Coast. There are very well educated and skilled people in that Department working in my riding in trailers. Because of some status symbol they want to have the wall in their trailer moved over six inches because a guy getting the same pay in another trailer has six inches more space in his office. I have had carpenters come into my riding office literally crying in frustration at what is going on in the Department of Fisheries out there. These are grown men with the talent of using their hands. If they are so fat with money and so idle in terms of what to do with the money, perhaps it is time to thin the operation out.
I will now return to the point which I want to make here. Since 1937, the International Pacific Fisheries Commission operating in the Province of British Columbia has received from both the United States Government and the Canadian Government a total of $31 million.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does the rule of relevancy on a motion put by the Hon. Members opposite apply? I am interested in hearing all of this at some appropriate time. I would like to hear some concrete solutions and not a litany of complaint.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Then sit down.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: I would ask the Hon. Member for Capilano to carry on and try to relate his remarks to the subject.
Supply


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I certainly am, Sir. The Parliamentary Secretary still has not heard or understood the list of questions asked him by my hon. colleague, the Member for Vancouver South. He has not heard a single thing.


Brian Vincent Tobin: You have not done your homework.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: The point is, Sir, that we have a Department which is fat with money. It has some 5,900 allocated person-years. On the West Coast it has some 345 people working out in the field. It has an attitude of bricks and mortar. It does not have an attitude of getting out into the streams and field to really perform the job which is needed. Now they have to slash away at important political issues. They have to throw a fly out on the water and try to get the fish on this side of the House to snap at it.
The International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission is an organization that is absolutely starving for resources. It is being starved by the United States Government and the Government of Canada. It has had $31 million since 1937. Yet if you read its report, Sir, you will find nothing but an upward curve in the harvest, escapement and return to the beds of the runs for which it is responsible. In its report it points out that, during the period from 1937 to 1982 in terms of the value of the catch in all commercial fishing areas of Fraser fish during the years of the Commission's management of both species, Canadian fishermen had received $346.6 million for sockeye and $85,830 million for pink salmon, while United States fishermen had received $222,525 million for sockeye and $44,678 million for pink salmon. That shows a wealthy resource being managed well over that period of time with $31 million.
Engineers in that Commission have spoken to me. They have created gravel beds that allow all of those runs to return. If you read this report you will find that all the escapement is on an upward incline. All their beds are growing. All the harvest the fishermen are catching from the runs they manage is on the increase, except in the Stewart and North Thompson areas where there is a negative factor. In the lower Fraser River, Harrison, Lillooet, Sedan Anderson, South Thompson, Chil-coutin and Quesnel, it is startling what those dedicated engineers and biologists have done with $31.5 million. That is about $1 million a year. We do not realize how much more they could do if their annual appropriation from this Government were doubled. That would mean about another million dollars per year.
They tell me that we are logging higher and higher on the hills and we get faster runoffs and silt coming down the stream which is silting in the gravel beds. When that happens, the proper procedure is to go in with pumps and people to wash the silt off these gravel beds so they will be ready for the next run. Otherwise, what is in them dies and they are no good for the runs that come back to lay eggs. They have been maintaining these streams all along. They have not got the money to clean a gravel bed that they now find is totally silted.
It is far more important, apparently, to get into a phoney political debate here on a Friday afternoon than to apply

February 3, 1984
Supply
ourselves and give resources to those areas of management where things are being done very well.


Brian Vincent Tobin: This is your motion.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: If there had not been a motion put forward by this Party, Mr. Speaker, there would have been no opportunity to bring some of these things to the floor. All of the key reports that the Government has hired and paid for have never been allowed into the committees of the House. That is the problem. The Hon. Member complains about the motion coming forward on a Friday. All the Opposition has to do is to wait for the Government House Leader to indicate which day is going to be an Opposition Day. We then decide upon what the subject matter will be. Forgive us if we have to look after our political hides, as you do. We then select a subject matter which is timely for the day and the hour, and we give notice of it by the proper time, otherwise we do not get the debate or the motion. So that is a red herring if I ever heard one.
The point I would really like to make in the minute or two I have left is that I think Canada has come to a point in time when we have to realize that the Government, like the people, has become soft through affluence. It is time to start tightening up a little bit instead of shovelling money at everything. It is time for managers within the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to get back out into the field and start working. It is time to deliver some of the youth opportunity programs to the international salmon commission so that they can clean out gravel beds that have silted in. It is time to start clearing streams. I have seen university students with donkey equipment clearing streams that are jammed because of logging. Right in the middle of clearing a jam they get a call to come back in because the commission is out of money. That is the tragic thing that is going on. There are fishermen tied up at docks when there is closure. With a good species and conservation management, there is no reason why they cannot be taken out on work programs into the streams and gravel beds which are so important for the fish that are returning to those particular areas.
The one other thing that we need more than anything, on the West Coast at least, is an emphasis on quality. That is, we need harvest equipment. If we are refleeting ourselves, and recapitalizing ourselves, we need to have technology that allows us to harvest the fish, clean and bleed the fish immediately on harvest so that we have the best quality product in the world. High quality fish products sell at demand prices all over the world. It is when we try to get away with less than good quality and try to can fish that come closer to the spawning grounds that we begin to get into serious trouble.
As well, one of the reasons why our fish packing industry in British Columbia is in so much trouble is the botulism scare that was caused by an Alaska cannery. We are peanuts compared to the Alaska harvest and Alaska Fishery, but the overflow of the botulism scare from Europe found in an American
packer's cans caused great problems and heartaches to canners on the West Coast.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Questions, comments and answers? Debate.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the fisheries crisis that exists in British Columbia today. It has been building for a number of years.
As I listened to the debate which took place this afternoon, it became obvious that the basic question we face is whether or not we can protect both the fisheries resource and the fishing industry. It is very obvious that we cannot save the industry without the resource; that is taken for granted.
It is important that we recognize just how crucial that industry is to British Columbia in terms of individual jobs, a way of life that is traditional for many people in British Columbia, and in terms of the economic foundation of many communities up and down the B.C. coast. Our Party believes that we can indeed save the industry along with the resource but not with the present policy.
The industry will not be saved by a policy of neglect or sell-out. It will not be saved by Orders in Council or regulations that are drafted without full and open consultation with the people who are involved in the industry and with Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. This industry will not be saved without a massive allocation of funds. British Columbia needs the kind of funding that we have seen allocated to the fishing industry on the East Coast.
The first step is to take a positive approach to our fishery, instead of simply trying to save the resource by squeezing fishermen out through a combination of government policies, high interest rates and high fuel costs. First, we need a policy of habitat protection. This must be a priority. Existing legislation must be enforced while scrapping the nonsense and phoney "no net loss" policy that the Minister has been talking about during the last few weeks and months.
In effect, the so called "no net loss" policy is simply a means of legitimizing the destruction of fish habitat. Let me raise a hypothetical situation, which is not so hypothetical when one considers that Alcan is going ahead with its application for Kemano II. How would the "no net loss" policy apply to such a massive project that will affect the entire northwest of our Province? How can there be a "no net loss" policy when the fisheries would be impacted so directly and massively by a mega project such as Kemano II?
Let me refer to another case, which is on a smaller scale but equally important because it is repeated over and over again throughout the Province. It involves the Cowichan estuary in my own riding. When members of the Cowichan Estuary Preservation Society raised questions about what was happening in the area, the Minister responded by talking about the "no net loss" policy. On December 20, 1983, as reported at page 358 of Hansard, I asked the Minister:
February 3, 1984

Would the Minister at least guarantee that the 'No net loss' policy he accepts will be site specific, that is, it will not be used to trade off habitat in one area for enhancement in another? Will the Minister ensure that the policy is open, so that the public will know in advance what it is getting and what it is losing under any specific proposal? Will the Minister further guarantee that the public will be able to suggest changes in proposals before they are adopted as final?
The Minister responded:
-every time there is an economic project which could have significant impact on the fishery, 1 can assure the Hon. Member that there will be a public process whereby all sectors will have the opportunity to put forward their views.
This ignores completely the specific question that I asked. I asked whether there would be public input so that the public could examine the specific proposals for exchange so that it would know what it was getting in return for what it was losing. The Minister talked about a vague process by which the public might be informed and have a chance at some point to make its views known.
Presently, in the Cowichan estuary they are talking about this kind of trade off. I wrote and asked for the details. The Minister's response, in a letter which came to me on January 9, 1984, was:
Rest assured that you will be forwarded details of the agreement when it has been finalized.
In other words, there will not be any kind of public participation in the "no net loss" policy. It will be a decision that is made behind closed doors, and the people of B.C., very rightly, suspect that it will involve sell-out after sell-out.
A second factor, which has to be part of any positive approach to the fishery, is the Salmonid Enhancement Program. We want to see phase two of this proceed. We would like to see an immediate allocation of some $200 million to deal with necessary projects that can begin to come onstream. This is important for two reasons. First, we must get away from the idea that the industry can somehow be saved when the habitat has been allowed to deteriorate to the extent it has. The habitat must be built up and some of the losses that have taken place over the last number of years must be regained. The emphasis should be on natural enhancement, and we should remove ourselves from the big hatchery approach that was so favoured by the Department a few years ago in the hope that it would be the answer.
It seems obvious that all sides of the House are recognizing something which the NDP said earlier, that the importance of small stream enhancement must be recognized. In the large hatcheries there is a mix of stocks, and when these are intercepted some small stocks can be completely wiped out as a result of being mixed in with the larger stocks from hatcheries. Hatcheries are not the answer. We need a comprehensive enhancement program that will develop every possible stream and river in British Columbia so that our habitat is maximized instead of allowing the kind of phoney trade-offs that the Minister envisages under the "no net loss" policy.
With respect to the immediate need for some projects, let me stress that salmonid enhancement and stream enhancement should be a continuing part of the industry. Some of the jobs that might be lost in the actual catching of fish must be found again in such projects as salmonid enhancement.
Supply
Just last month I received a letter from a young fisherman who had been told that there was money available for fishermen who did not qualify for unemployment insurance, for the Salmonid Enhancement Program or for other projects. He wrote:
I have tried repeatedly to get some facts on these projects to no avail. Before Christmas 1 was told these projects would start in January. Today when I contacted the Employment Development Branch in Bastion Square I was told none of these projects would start until the end of February! You can imagine my frustration! What good are projects starting then just before fishing season opens. I want to do work now. I require funds to see me through until fishing season opens and also to do maintenance'work on my boat so I can go fishing and make my livelihood.
This is the kind of desperate situation many fishermen are in. They did not make enough money or were unable to work enough weeks last year to qualify for UIC. They would like to work on projects which would build up the resource, but those projects are just not available.
When we inquired, we found out that there was some $15 million made available for projects across Canada for fishermen who failed to qualify for unemployment insurance in 1983. British Columbia received $1,900,000 of that, and the rest of it went to eastern Canada. This illustrates the neglect of the British Columbia resource in favour of the resource in eastern Canada.
A third element in a positive approach has to be emphasis upon a voluntary buy-back program. We do not want to see people commandeered out of their livelihoods. Let us begin by having a voluntary buy-back. That should eliminate some 20 per cent to 25 per cent of fishermen, many of whom are very anxious right now to get out of the industry.
There has been a fair number of questions raised about the whole Indian fishery. Certainly we on this side of the House support Indian participation in the commercial fishery. We recognize the need for special measures to restore the historic level of that participation. In my own case, 1 am very aware of the way in which Indian fishermen were squeezed out of the industry by the buy-back and licensing program of the Liberal Government in the early 1970s under Jack Davis, when he was Minister of Fisheries. Of course, right now he is a Socred back-bencher, along with other Liberals and Conservatives in British Columbia.
Measures to enlarge Indian participation and to restore it to its historic level should be taken in consultation with other sectors of the industry. We recognize aboriginal rights to the resource. We absolutely support that. However, the burden must not be placed entirely upon one segment of society. The burden has to be borne by society at large. We recognize that in other aboriginal rights settlements. Certainly it should apply in any recognition of aboriginal rights of Indian people to fishery resources and to the resources of the ocean. The burden of any claim settlement has to be borne by Canadian society at large instead of just removing it from the people already involved in the fishing industry.

February 3, 1984
Supply
I emphasize to the Government that racial tension and racial division is not the way to preserve the fishery. It is not the answer for Indian people, for the Liberal Government or for Canadian society.
A fifth element of any policy has to be a recognition of the sport fishery. It should be able to share in some of the enhancement which has to take place. A great deal of the sport fishery will be concentrated on lower Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. There has to be a great deal of enhancement in the area of coho and chinook stocks, because they are the very stocks which are most under stress right now. Unless there is an active enhancement program, the sport fishery will be deeper and deeper in trouble.
I would like to make a couple of comments about some of the remarks of my colleagues to my right in the Progressive Conservative Party. I was rather surprised by the remarks of the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) who suggested that one of the basic problems with our fishery was that the Department of Fisheries had too much money and too many people. I guess this reflects his own cutback mentality, a streak which runs very deeply through the Tory Party. I fail to see how cutting back on money or personnel in the Department of Fisheries will solve in any way the crisis in the fisheries, which he very eloquently recognized in his speech. I wonder whether he or the Hon. Member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was articulating Tory policy with regard to money and allocation of personnel to the Department of Fisheries.
At the same time I was somewhat surprised by the remarks of the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who deplored the break-off of negotiations on the salmon interception treaty with the United States. I think the Government of Canada really had no alternative. It had backed down time and time again. My Party was very critical of the Government for backing down and giving away more and more of the store to the United States. Finally there came a point when even the Liberals could not stomach it any more. Evidently the Tories have an insatiable appetite for eating whatever Uncle Sam puts in front of them.
In conclusion, if we are to save the resource and the industry, the Government must have a more forthright policy. It must enforce present habitat protection laws. It must bring proposed changes to the House for debate, so that all Members of Parliament can represent the views of their constituents, so that proposed changes can then go to committee and the committee can hear the views of workers in the industry and of other interested people. The committee could then hear from
communities affected by the changes and hear from Indian organizations. There has to be a much more open policy than we have seen thus far.
Finally, there has to be a commitment of funding to British Columbia of the kind we have seen committed to the fishery in eastern Canada. The fishery in western Canada will not be saved unless the Government is prepared to commit money or is prepared to give it a higher priority than it has. It will not be saved by policies of neglect or policies of confrontation.
I call upon the Government to bring together all sectors of the industry in an open and up-front way. In any changes it should ensure that Parliament is fully involved and that the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestries is involved so that the public will see what is happening and will have a chance of becoming involved.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question will be very short. I listened with interest to the Hon. Member who has just spoken. I refer him to a CBC interview of January 27, 1984. The discussion was concerning the break-off of the negotiations. Mr. O'Reilly, who is an aid to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane), was talking about drastic action to retaliate against the United States. He said:
The trans-boundary rivers interference with the flow of stocks from those rivers is one possibility.
He was referring to the fact that there are stocks which go down Canadian rivers and emerge in the ocean on the Alaskan side. The reporter said:
What he is threatening is the killing of young salmon leaving northern Canadian rivers just so the Alaska fishermen won't be able to catch them.
Does the Hon. Member think that that is the way in which we should proceed? What is the use of killing the fish in an attempt to try to beat the Americans back to the bargaining table?


James Douglas Manly: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Guilbault):: Order, please. It being five o'clock, it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 62(11), the proceedings on the motion have expired.
Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until Monday at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, February 6, 1984