1985-02-27

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, the present standstill in the Japanese Canadian redress issue is most regrettable and unacceptable. In an attempt to re-establish a dialogue, the Japanese Canadian Association has been seeking a meeting with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney). Its search to date has been fruitless, and its deep frustration and disappointment were clearly demonstrated in a February 2 letter addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
The refusal of the Prime Minister to meet with the Association is difficult to comprehend. This is the same individual who gave this issue great importance during his days as Opposition Leader, and who demonstrated his commitment to redress repeatedly during the recent federal election campaign. Consequently, the Japanese Canadian community rightfully expected a process that would be completely open, genuine, and thorough. Instead it has received government imposed deadlines, unilateral government proposals, and a reversal on the Government's negotiations commitment. Now that process is at a deadlock. An uncomfortable and confusing silence prevails.
The Prime Minister promised emphatically that his office would be open and accessible. I urge him to prove that this promise is fact rather than fiction, by opening his doors to the Japanese Canadian Association. Only in this spirit will the redress issue have any chance of resolving itself.
The Association has met with our Party and with the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


PETRO-CANADA UNJUSTIFIED INCREASES TO SMALL RETAILERS-IMPACT ON QUEBEC
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising in the House today to speak out, once again, against the unacceptable practices of Petro-Canada management who now expects Quebec station service operators to renew next year's leases at rates of 15 to 20 per cent higher than current leases.
I intend to draw the attention of my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) and of the whole House to those unwarranted increases being forced upon small retailers by Petro-Canada. The situation is particularly serious in Quebec where gasoline prices are already higher than anywhere else. Since the 1984 inflation rate was only 4.4 per cent, I see no justification for Petro-Canada-it is ours, they keep telling us-to seek rent increases of about 15 per cent.
Time has come to ask for explanations from the management of this Crown corporation, and that is our responsibility. I am confident that we can indeed help small service station operators by putting a stop to the unquenchable thirst of Petro-Canada which is destroying those essential business enterprises by forgetting to behave as a good corporate citizen mindful of the will of its true owners, the consumers in Quebec and elsewhere.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the new Canadian Multiculturalism Council announced last week by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Murta) is not the representative body it should be. Eighteen of the sixty members live in the Province of Ontario. Fifteen of those eighteen persons, a full quarter of the Canadian Multiculturalism Council, are residents of the Metro Toronto region.
Although Torontonians often regard themselves as the movers and shakers of our nation, their numbers represent a little more than one-tenth of the Canadian population. These demographic realities should not have been forgotten by a Minister from the Canadian west.
The fact that three persons are expected to represent all the Ontario ethnocultural realities outside Metro Toronto is par-

February 27, 1985
ticularly objectionable to my constituents and other residents in northwestern Ontario. They thought that the multicultural-ism directorate was preoccupied with metropolitan concerns in the past. These appointments will confirm them in their sense of neglect by successive Ministers of State for Multicultural-ism.
A concern that partisan politics will continue to dominate federal multicultural policies is encouraged by the fact that Sault Ste. Marie provides the sole northern Ontario member of the Council. Excellent candidates from the larger communities of Sudbury and Thunder Bay-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


THE SENATE
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, accountability is one of the basics of democratic government. The Government of Canada is accountable to the House of Commons. This House is accountable to the electorate, but the other place is not accountable to anyone.
The Leader of the Opposition in the other place has said that he is not accountable to the Leader of his own Party for what happens there. Each member of his caucus is accountable only to his own conscience for what he does there, but nonetheless the other place asserts a legislative authority which affects not only the work of the Government but the well-being of Canada, and at a high cost.
The other place is not accountable to the people, but in the next fiscal year it will cost $26 million to operate, or about a quarter of a million dollars for each member of that place. If one member appointed last summer lives to retirement age, he will have cost taxpayers about $5 million for salaries, expenses, and the cost of his office. When they assert the authority they claim and cost the expense they incur, surely they ought to be accountable to someone.


TOURISM
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, since November this Government has been proposing one contradictory policy after another. As far as the tourist industry is concerned, the contradictions are particularly obvious. Allow me to explain. On December 12, 1984, the Minister of State for Tourism (Mr. McMillan) said, and I quote:
To provide a sound basis for Canada's tourist industry, we must establish an action plan aimed at making the entire industry more competitive, instead of having short term initiatives that are totally uncoordinated.
Since the Minister took up his duties, I have seen no such plan. In fact, it is his Government and his department that are proposing short term and uncoordinated initiatives.
I will give an example that involves the entire Canadian tourist industry and especially the Minister's own province, Prince Edward Island. A reporter of the "Journal Pioneer" made the following point, and I quote:

But while welcoming the increased injection of federal dollars into the tourism marketing process, it can't help but be noted that the Government is oddly inconsistent in its policies. On the one hand it spends money to attract tourists, while at the same time it continues to boost the price of gasoline, thereby putting in place a serious impediment-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, it is with the utmost reluctance that I rise in the House today to speak under the provisions of Standing Order 21. When this House bestowed on me the privilege of serving as Acting Speaker, I agreed not to take part in debate out of deference to the House, to the Speaker's function and the Speaker himself, for whom I have the greatest respect.
Today, exceptionally, I wish to address the House on the Domtar case. My constituents find it very difficult to accept the Government's decision in this matter.
Like all Canadians, we realize that the Government's financial position is a precarious one, but we also know that in the Eastern Townships, high unemployment, vulnerable traditional industries and low average wages have been the rule for far too long.
We know the Domtar project to be an excellent one and particularly suited to a region which, in the course of a recent socio-economic summit, expressed its commitment to settling for nothing less than excellence. Today I want to say that we are determined to see the Domtar project carried out, for the well-being of the entire country.
The people of the Eastern Townships will feel encouraged today by the statement made by our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who promised to see whether other forms of assistance would be feasible, and they are prepared to work together through various task forces in order to ensure the Domtar project is carried out.
February 27, 1985


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably too early to question the new Minister of National Defence (Mr. Nielsen) on the complex problems of his portfolio. We will leave that for tomorrow. However, the time is right to set out some of the issues he will have to deal with as soon as he gets his bearings. Here is a shopping list of changes and challenges we would like to see the Minister tackle.
First, the Minister will have to start an over-all policy review right away. We are committing ourselves to major purchases and untried strategies, without any sense of direction. Let us take a hard look at some of those expenditures. The Minister is certainly qualified to do that. We are rushing to get our sailors into new uniforms while their ships are stranded, either in drydock or on the drawing boards of engineers. Let's get our priorities straight.
At the same time we have to ask ourselves whether we are being sucked into dangerous new strategies. The new Minister should make it clear to everyone that Canada will have no part of nuclear weapons or of a defensive arms race in space. Loyalty demands that we speak out when our friends are making mistakes that could cost us all dearly. Unquestioning servitude does no one a service. Finally, the Minister should let everyone know that Canada threatens no one. We only seek to protect the democracy we hold so dearly.
If the Minister would undertake these challenges, he would certainly have our support and encouragement. Let us not let this opportunity slip by.


BALTIC EVENING
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, tonight we celebrate the Thirteenth Annual Baltic evening on Parliament Hill when Canadians of Baltic heritage from across Canada join with parliamentarians in commemoration of the Independence Days of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
The desire for liberty and independence of the people of the Baltic nations remains alive and strong, and constitutes one of the best hopes for a just and lasting peace. Canadians are known internationally to possess an understanding and sympathy for the national and human rights aspirations of people throughout the world.
I believe it is fitting that we in this House clearly manifest to the people of the Baltic nations that the people of Canada share with them their aspirations for the recovery of their freedom, national independence, and human rights.
I am sure that all Canadians would want us to welcome the honorary consuls from the three Baltic states, Lithuania,
Oral Questions
Latvia, and Estonia, and the representatives of the Baltic communities in Canada who are here with us in Ottawa today.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
M. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, in her speech on February 6 of this year, the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced her new summer employment program for students, which is called Challenge '85.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider what the name of this program implies. The challenge is one that the present Government is offering to the private sector and its individual members. It is a new approach that is aimed at giving the initiative back to the private sector. In accordance with our desire for collaboration, consultation and co-operation with our various economic partners, we are truly delighted with the project announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald).
Today, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer the same challenge to all Members of this House. I shall, if I may, explain how I set up my own campaign.
With the co-operation of business organizations in my constituency, such as the Chamber of Commerce, I sent a personal letter to all heads of businesses, both large and small, urging them to take up this challenge and support economic renewal by helping our students.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are astounded, amazed, and perhaps even outraged-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: They are certainly discouraged. I have come to the conclusion that the Government has absolutely no shame when preaching restraint. Notwithstanding the political arithmetic of the President of the Treasury Board, we have seen an effective increase of twice the rate of inflation in the Estimates when properly compared with last year. The Prime

February 27, 1985
Oral Questions
Minister and his office are virtually wallowing in the public trough. At the same time, some of the poorest provinces, most notably Manitoba, have been savaged.
My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the Minister plan on financing this massive $105 billion increase in public expenditure with a tax increase that will be borne by ordinary Canadians?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member thoroughly understands the situation, which is that these Estimates are spending estimates. Based on what I said in the House the other day, we are looking at an improved economic situation and we will probably have a better economic and fiscal picture as we move into next year. I believe the Estimates that were provided to the House yesterday by my colleague demonstrate a clear understanding of the fiscal situation, and of the restraint that is necessary to get the deficit under control.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the most fatuous statements I have ever heard from this Minister. Surely to goodness when there is this increase and the provinces are being savaged, he cannot rise and not tell us how he is going to finance that expenditure of $105 billion.
I was an observer at the honeymoon in Regina two weeks ago. The Premiers sat around the table having a wonderful honeymoon among themselves. Why did the Minister of Finance, who was present, not seize that opportunity to discuss these cuts? Why did he not discuss the $73 million reduction in the case of Manitoba and the $263 million reduction in the case of Quebec? Was he afraid of spoiling the honeymoon?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member would want us to obey the law as we set down our Estimates. Those Estimates for the equalization payments are based on the law as it stands today. He understands-


An Hon. Member:: It was set by them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is right. He understands the law as it was established by the previous Government in 1982.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We have had ongoing discussions with the provinces to which he referred, and I would hope that we would be able to reach some resolution of the situation in the very near future.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, surely we have not reached the point at which we will
plead dura lex set lex when it comes to the treatment of the provinces and of individual Canadian citizens with respect to the transfer of payments.
My last supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. Perhaps I may borrow that splendid word "refurbish". Why has the Prime Minister elected at this time to refurbish his own office with a 54 per cent increase in the budget, what he describes as being a tiny amount of $2 million, and 30 new positions? How can the Prime Minister preach austerity to his colleagues and the country, yet justify that kind of expenditure?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend referred to the word "tiny". To place it in perspective, the PMO expenditures represent six one-hundredths of 1 per cent-


Ms. Copps:: 54 per cent.


Mr. Allmand:: That's a bad example.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that is a bad example. When I cut my own salary by 15 per cent, the Leader of the Opposition said no.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The rate of increase is the lowest in some 15 or 16 years, and I think that is a tribute to what we have been trying to do. My hon. friend asked for real increase. I think that I can give him the real increase. For example, during the transition from Mr. Pearson to Mr. Trudeau, the increase was 700 per cent in terms of personnel. That is clearly the kind of abuse against which my hon. friend spoke so frequently when he was seeking to lead the Liberal Party. That is the difference.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. During the election campaign the Conservative Party said that unemployment was its highest priority and that it would create thousands of jobs. How can the Minister honestly state that unemployment is the highest priority when, in the Estimates which were tabled yesterday, the Government committed less real resources to job creation and training than in the present year, and while increasing the budget for the Prime Minister's Office, $290 million was cut from job creation and $120 million was cut from training programs, when it had previously cut $386 million on November 4? What kind of priority and commit-
February 27, 1985
[Stage Direction]
ment is that? How can she reconcile her rhetoric during the election campaign with her actions yesterday?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was not around long enough to understand how the Estimates are prepared.


William Warren Allmand: Seven years.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: He said he was there for seven years. He still does not understand.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: As the Hon. Member very well knows, those Estimates were in print before the $205 million was announced for Challenge '85. That is not included in the Estimates, nor is the $695 million that the Prime Minister announced in Regina. The Hon. Member will find, when the total amount is added in, that those figures will compare most favourably to anything which was done in the previous year.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SIZE OF FUNDING
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I prepared Estimates for seven years, and I doubt that she will last that long.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: The Minister referred to the statement which was made in Regina on February 14. That was another example of media politics. In this little green book, she said that, over and above the $1.2 billion which is now available for training and employment, there would be another $695 million. Today she said that the $695 million was not in the Estimates which were tabled yesterday. Is she going to give us another shell game? As I have pointed out, the Minister has already cut $796 million from employment programs. By calling them different titles, is she going to put back $695 million to fool the Canadian people?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what I intend to do, and what the Government intends to do, is to provide jobs for Canadians. We are not going to get into a numbers game with the Hon. Member. That is not what Canadians are looking for. Canadians are looking for the kind of measures which were taken in Regina. Those measures were endorsed by every provincial Premier in the country, as well as labour groups, business groups and youth groups from one coast to the other. I wish that he would catch up with the rest of the people in the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Canadians are also looking for relief from the high interest rates we are experiencing right now.
My question relates to whether we are getting the straight goods about government spending in the Estimates which were tabled yesterday. The most striking feature of those Estimates is the $5 billion increase in interest payments on the public debt, as the Minister knows. We were told by the Minister's officials that the average rate of interest on that debt is going to 10.6 per cent. In view of the fact that there is not a single maturity of government bonds which could be floated for less than 12 per cent on the market today, how much is the increase in interest rates we will experience this spring going to cost Canadians in 1985-1986?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his support in our effort to reduce that deficit, which obviously is causing us great difficulties. In terms of the Estimates, it is the 10.6 per cent interest rate which we have used to calculate the charges which would be paid for servicing the public debt. It represents our best estimate of the average rate which we will be paying throughout the coming fiscal year on the outstanding debt of the country, and we stand by that estimate for the moment.


UNITED STATES' INTEREST RATES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister says: "We stand by the estimate for the moment". That means he is leaving the door open to a change of view later on in the year. It sounds to me just like the Liberals when they were in power.
In view of the warnings which came today-

In view of the warning note sounded today by the President of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States, Mr. Volck-er, who mentioned the possibility of an increase in interest rates in the United States, can the Minister give the House the assurance that Canadians will not have to pay once again for any eventual increase in the cost of servicing the public debt, and if not, can the Minister give the House the assurance that no additional cuts will be made to pay for the increased cost of servicing the debt?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, when we set interest rates on the basis of what it costs to service the public debt, we do so not only on the basis of our own forecasts but also on the basis of forecasts made by a number of independent agencies. I am told that the Confer-

February 27, 1985
Oral Questions
ence Board, for instance, is expecting interest rates to drop this year, a development that will undoubtedly be most welcome, to my hon. colleague as well. I may add that our forecast of 10.6 would seem to be quite objective and quite logical for the purposes of the document I tabled yesterday.


FEDERAL TAX EXPENDITURES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance who will know that the estimates tabled yesterday only tell half the story about government spending. Will the Minister undertake to provide Parliament with a full accounting of $30 billion to $5 billion in federal tax expenditures and tax concessions, well in advance of the Budget so that Canadians get the whole picture of government spending before the Budget comes down?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated my concern for the size of the tax expenditure figure, as has the Hon. Member and some of his colleagues. I am looking at that right now. I would hope that I would be able to provide additional information on that, if not before the Budget, certainly within the Budget.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He has probably had a chance to read the letter my Leader sent him yesterday, asking him to become personally involved in the Domtar case. He is undoubtedly aware of the negative reaction of all parties involved, including the Government of Quebec and the unions, who feel that the reasons given by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion were not satisfactory. Does the Prime Minsiter intend to act personally to reverse his Minister's decision in the Domtar case?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was referring to a letter from his Liberal leader. I have not received it yet, but I may add that I am still waiting for an answer to a letter I sent him two weeks ago, about the extraordinary and'unacceptable behaviour of Liberal senators who were obstructing legislation. I have yet to receive a reply from the Leader of the Opposition.
About the request concerning Domtar, a company-


Mr. Chretien:: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice says yes or no. We are going to do better than the Liberal Party
which said no to Petromont and then practically killed the petrochemical industry in Quebec. That is what the Liberal Party did! You tried to kill the petrochemical industry in Quebec.
I have received a request. I intend . . . Ah!. .. the clowns from Quebec! There are not as many, but they are still here.
I can inform my hon. friend that I intend . . . Ah!. . . the Quebec lieutenant from Newfoundland!
There will probably be some talks on the Domtar case in March.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister's cheap shots are in very bad taste, when thousands of jobs in Quebec are at stake.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister who is telling the truth in this Government. While he is carrying out an exercise in public relations, his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion issues a press release saying that the decision will not be reviewed. Who is telling the truth? Does the Prime Minister intend to rap the knuckles of his Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Speaking of cheap shots, Mr. Speaker, we have the Hon. Member for Westmount-


Donald James Johnston: Saint-Henri-Westmount!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Saint-Henri-Westmount, I beg your pardon! Do you live in Saint-Henri or Westmount?
On one side, we have the Hon. Member for Westmount who is asking us to cut Government spending and to deal with the deficit we inherited, and on the other side we have the Hon. Member who is demanding that we give a direct subsidy of $100 million to a company whose major shareholder is the Government of Quebec. That being said-


Jean-C. Lapierre: Yes, I am a Quebecer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: He says yes, but I am a Quebecer too, and all Quebecers want public funds to be managed prudently, and that is what we are going to do, in collaboration with the Government of Quebec.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS SIZE OF EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and relates to funding for Quebec, Manitoba, and two other provinces which, as a result of the Estimates tabled yesterday, believe they will be receiving less funding through equalization payments than they
February 27, 1985

received last year. I recognize that the Minister was right in answering a previous questioner, when he said the fault for that lay with the previous Government. The thing is, he now represents the Government. Therefore, will those provinces be receiving more money in equalization payments?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer I gave to the previous questioner stands. These Estimates were prepared on the basis of the existing law, and that law stands until it is changed. It will not be changed until we complete discussions with the affected provinces. Those discussions are going on today. But I would caution the Hon. Member to look at this in the broader context. The transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care are increasing by 7.4 per cent next year.


REQUEST FOR CHANGES IN FORMULA
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, when the Minister's Party was in opposition its members said that the equalization plan was not sufficient and they would change it to help the poor provinces. Are they going to do that? If so, are they going to do it soon so those provinces can make plans for their expenditures?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have set in train a series of meetings which will be starting around mid-year for officials, and will continue on through the fall for all Ministers involved in the equalization issue. There may or may not be some changes in the equalization formula arising from those discussions. I cannot prejudge the discussions at this point, but we are going into it with an open mind.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. JAMES TUCKER, SPEAKER OF THE NEW BRUNSWICK LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Mr. Speaker:: May I briefly interrupt the proceedings to advise Members of the presence in our gallery today of James Tucker, Speaker of the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, for it also has to do with the Domtar subsidy which has yet to be approved. I bring this matter up again because, in my opinion, it has been dealt with rather lightly in the House today. I wish to stress and draw to the attention of the Prime Minister a
Oral Questions
Canadian Press report concerning a statement allegedly made by the Minister of Industry. Here it is:

The Government took into consideration the U.S. Government's sensitivity towards any subsidy of production at this time to the American market for forest products.

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is going to stand still while his Minister of Industry-or any other of his Cabinet colleagues-is listening to the representations of the Americans rather than meeting the needs of the people of Quebec who are desperately looking for work and not getting anything from this Government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The nerve of the Hon. Member! Barely a few months ago, the Liberal Government turned thumbs down on an essential subsidy to Petromont in order to save Quebec's petrochemical industry. Only $15 million and you turned it down. Having left the public treasury saddled with a $35 billion deficit, the Liberal Party is now urging us to give blank cheques to a company whose majority shareholder is a provincial Government.
This 1 can tell my colleague: we consider that Domtar is a sound company, well administered and with challenging projects. The Premier of Quebec and I will see if we can provide any kind of assistance but, ever mindful of the financial predicament which we inherited, I cannot give or ask anyone to give blank cheques to any company-private or public.


STATUS OF JOB SECURITY OF DOMTAR EMPLOYEES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the Prime Minister is telling us there is no money left, or that the purse strings are so tight that the Domtar people cannot be helped. I might therefore ask him to explain why the decision has already been made to spend over $50 million to outfit the military with new uniforms, or why millions will be spent to raise by more than 50 per cent the budget of the Prime Minister's Office staff, while the Domtar people will just have to wait. That is what I want to know. What must they wait for?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This important matter was long neglected by the Liberal Government when it was in office. The Liberal Party and the Liberal Government have neglected the Eastern Townships for years and years. The only thing they remember in the Eastern Townships is that the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice made a commitment in five different election campaigns-he was going to transfer a Government department from Ottawa to Sherbrooke, five times he promised that, so much so that the people of Quebec and the Eastern Townships residents finally said that they had heard enough from the Liberal Party, they

February 27, 1985
Oral Questions
wanted worthwhile projects, a responsible Government that would work hand in hand with the Quebec Government to strengthen regional economic structures.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, while the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General are both hiding out in Barbados because it is too hot for them here-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Nunziata's pupil.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: One day is fine, but one week is too much.


Mr. McDermid:: Sour grapes.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: When the Prime Minister spoke in the House in answer to questions about the Hatfield meeting with the Solicitor General, I took his answer, and the country took his answer, to suggest that he was questioning the judgment of his Solicitor General. Mounting editorial opinion is demanding the resignation of the Solicitor General over that meeting.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Last week in Edmonton-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question, please?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Is the Prime Minister aware that his own Cabinet colleague, the Minister of Justice, has also said that he would demand the resignation of the Solicitor General? In view of the untenable position that the Minister is now in, will he not do the proper thing in the interests of the administration of justice of this country and demand the resignation of the Solicitor General?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I see that a week's holiday has done nothing for the Member's grace or sense of humour. Bad puns will always be alive and well as long as the Member is asking questions. The Minister of Justice-you know full well-made no such statement. The manner in which you distort the statement would have the Minister saying that. In point of fact, both the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General have responded fully, as best human beings can. Their answers are on the record and should satisfy the Hon. Member.


Mr. Speaker:: Short supplementary.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have the Prime Minister answer fully. Although he has been asked, he has not so far told the House when he first learned that marijuana had been found in the luggage of Premier Hatfield. He has said when he heard about charges; he has said when he heard that charges were laid.


Mr. Speaker:: I have yet to hear a question. The Hon. Member for Skeena.


FORESTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Forestry. It is clear now that the struggle in Cabinet is over and that the forest sector has been given the axe at the federal level. Would the Minister explain to Parliament why Canada's largest industry, which contributed $25.9 billion to our economy and employed one worker in 10 Canada, is facing a 15 per cent cut from last year's level of expenditures, at a time when his own officials have said that between Newfoundland and British Columbia a failure to give more money to the forest sector at the federal level will mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is obviously off cue here. When we finish the agreements and discussions with the provinces we will have signed for more money in forest renewal and forest lands with the provinces than the previous Government did in 10 years.


SIZE OF FUNDING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. I am sure that he is aware that less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the proposed expenditures which were released yesterday will go to the forest sector at the federal level. During the election campaign all of the government Members from British Columbia went around B.C. promising $200 million a year. Why has he only put forward $175 million a year for the whole of forestry at the federal level in Canada, knowing that it will mean the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in Canada's largest industry?


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: He won't answer that.


Gerald Stairs Merrithew: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows full well that we negotiate, under the ERDA, sub-agreements for forestry. He knows full well that we have already signed with several provinces, and more are pending. When we finish we will have more than the Hon. Member mentions in terms of forestry agreements and activity on the land to help the forest industry in Canada.
February 27, 1985


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is with regard to the quotas which the Minister announced last December on EEC beef coming into Canada. This beef from Ireland was heavily subsidized by up to 48 cents a pound.
Can the Minister confirm the report that the Government is planning to cave in on those quotas and, due to pressure from the EEC, is going to allow the beef quotas to be lifted and allow the beef to come into Canada without the quotas?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: The simple answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is no. It would be very improper and foolish for us to give any indication of what our bargaining position is, particularly when those sessions are currently in progress.


NEGOTIATIONS INQUIRY
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is then confirming that in fact negotiations are going on to raise the quotas. Why is the Minister selling out the farmers of the country? If the Minister is going to maintain the quotas as announced at 5.9 million pounds in December, why is he negotiating? Why is he sending his officials to negotiate with the EEC countries unless he is going to be caving in on us?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, it is very obvious from the comments of the Hon. Member that he does not fully understand the international trade agreement. I would like to assure the Hon. Member and the House through you, Mr. Speaker, that because of the inaction of the Government last year, which resulted in a disaster in the Canadian beef industry in 1984, we gave a commitment that that same disaster would not repeat itself in 1985. I stand by that commitment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MAIN ESTIMATES
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who promised a major change in direction when he was elected on September 4. The Estimates have given us our first opportunity to see the Government's plans. The Prime Minister promised help to many sectors that are not reflected in the Estimates. The Bay Street friends of the Minister of Finance called for massive government reductions in spending and size, which are not reflected in the Estimates.
Would the Prime Minister not agree that this set of Estimates could have been submitted by the Hon. Member for
Oral Questions
Windsor West when he was President of the Treasury Board? How is the Government differing from what we became used to, with Liberal Government after Liberal Government? How does this differ at all?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Probably in a number of important ways. First of all, the document contains many important decisions announced on November 8 which caused the Government of Canada to be able to contain the rate of growth to the lowest figure in many years. I think that is important. My hon. friend should take some hope from that. Having inherited a situation midway through the fiscal year, the Government is trying to arrest the growth of public expenditures so as to cause the negative impact on that deficit and the driving up of interest rates by crowding out the private sector on the borrowing side.
The statement of November 8 was important and contained very important items. I think that my hon. friend will be pleased as well to see that the next statement made by the Minister of Finance, being the Budget, will contain further and important provisions designed to get Canadians back to work and to increase wealth in Canada.


PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He knows how important is the leadership that he gives the country during this very difficult time. Could he explain once again, at a time when the Government is trying to curtail growth and expenditures, what kind of symbolism it gave the people of Canada when he expanded his office from 90 to 120, and increased expenditures more than 50 per cent? What kind of signal is that giving to the people of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Probably not a good one. As I indicated to the press this morning, I hope it is a temporary measure. It was brought about by a number of considerations, one of which was the decision made by the former Prime Minister to eliminate two co-ordinating Ministries in Social Affairs and Economic Development. As a result of this, when we came into power with the first majority Progressive Conservative Government in 25 years, in the absence of the two co-ordinating Ministries the PMO was called upon to take a greater role in the co-ordination and development of government policy across the board. Because by hon. friend is known for his fairness he will recognize, as I do, that while the total expenditure represents, as I have said, six one-hundredths of 1 per cent of total expenditures, I acknowledge to my hon. friend quite readily-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I could go on, but they don't want to hear me any more.

February 27, 1985
Oral Questions


FINANCE
Mr. Clement M. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. It is the same one as yesterday and I hope to get a reply today.
Could the Minister of Finance inform the Flouse what the delay in passing Bill C-ll, an Act to provide borrowing authority, will cost Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the latest calculation that I have done on the cost of the inordinate delay of some three weeks in the Senate of Bill C-11 is about $10 million.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There could well be additional costs if there is a greater compression of government borrowing, if there is further delay. I hope there will not be further delay because taxpayers are getting very, very impatient with the Senate.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
On January 31 of this year, I asked the Minister responsible for the Status of Women about the appointment of a president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women. The Minister answered that it was a matter of weeks. There has been no appointment since that time, and the vice-president who was in an acting capacity left Ottawa yesterday.
Could the Prime Minister inform the House when he intends to appoint a president of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.


REQUEST FOR DECISION CONCERNING APPOINTMENT OF CHAIRPERSON
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, in that case I wish to thank the Prime Minister for this appointment.
Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that the future president will be bilingual and have the requisite
energy and knowledge of women's issues to properly advise on the present status of women in Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the future incumbent will above all be competent. Next, bilingual, without a doubt, and lastly, full of enthusiasm for these issues.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Government, to its credit, broke with a long tradition of Liberal secrecy and for the first time in the history of our country announced the operating budget for the new Canadian civilian Security Service, the incredible amount of $116 million. In view of the fact that the RCMP estimates have been reduced by only $45 million as a result of the transfer to a civilian service, could the Prime Minister explain to this House, and to the people of Canada, what major new threats to the security of Canada justify this massive increase in the expenditures on the new civilian Security Service?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Solicitor General, who, I am sure, will be able to address these matters very adequately in a committee context, I will take the Hon. Member's question as notice and make sure that an answer is given to him as soon as the Solicitor General returns to Canada.


SERVICE'S ACCOUNTABILITY
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister might answer an important question. In view of the fact that while he led his Party in Opposition, that Party joined with the NDP and thousands of Canadians in condemning the dangerous powers, the vague mandate, and the lack of parliamentary accountability of the Security Service, what steps is the Prime Minister going to take, now that he forms the Government, to amend this legislation to ensure, in particular, that there is full parliamentary oversight of the operations of the new Security Service?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, one of the things that we have done, and perhaps we should do more, was to appoint an overview committee composed of five distinguished Canadians, including a very distinguished member of the NDP, the Hon. Sol Cherniak, whom I had the pleasure of inviting to join the Privy Council for that end.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 27, 1985


FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister, who appears to have lots of energy today.
My question concerns the recent agreement which the Prime Minister signed with the Province of Newfoundland. In that agreement all oil from the off-shore of Newfoundland must first go to meet the industrial capacity and the needs of eastern Canada before any new industries will be allowed to be built in the Province of Newfoundland. Will the Prime Minister undertake to re-examine this clause, to remove the discrimination in Clause 54 against Newfoundland, before the legislation is introduced into this Parliament?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, most documents that I am aware of by and large have some imperfections and I would be happy to look at anything that might be raised if it were helpful to Newfoundland and Labrador. I think my hon. friend would agree, however, that notwithstanding the point he raises, and we can look at it objectively that after 13 years of obstruction by the former Government-


Jacques Guilbault: Don't be dirty now.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -we were able to conclude an agreement with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador for the benefit of Newfoundlanders, and I think that is good for Canada as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am not concerned about the desires of the Newfoundland Government; I am concerned about the desires of the Newfoundland people.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Are the Prime Minister and the Government advocating that they would suggest the same deal to the Province of Alberta and force Alberta oil to be sold to industrial capacity outside the Province of Alberta before allowing Alberta to build a new petrochemical industry? Is that what the Government would suggest to the Province of Alberta?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have said many times that what we are trying to do, and for which we make no apology at all, is to show that we, unlike the previous Government, are not afraid to inflict prosperity on Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: We think that is fair and that is good for Canada.
There is nothing in the signed agreement that would give rise to that difficult situation envisaged by my friend. If it were the case, and it is not, why would all the Liberals in the provincial House be joining the Conservatives in Newfoundland? They are doing it because they know that that deal was good for Newfoundland and Labrador, and good for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister, who apparently said this morning that something would have to be done about the Senate. Would the Prime Minister indicate to us whether he is prepared now to consider the long-standing NDP recommendation that the Senate be abolished? If he is not prepared to go that far, will the Prime Minister at least declare a moratorium on the appointment of Senators until such time as the Government can come forward with proposals for Senate reform?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have not gotten around to that, Mr. Speaker, except to assure my hon. friend that there will be action taken, given the historic obstruction of the Liberal Senators preventing the unanimous will of the House of Commons being followed through. I did consider something cataclysmic-the appointment of the Hon. Member for Birds Hill to the Senate.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: But I do not know whether the Senate would survive it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The very thought of going to the Senate disturbs me greatly, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I feel that I am far too young, and I am not used up yet.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not the way it seems to us.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for comments is used up. Perhaps a question?

February 27, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MORATORIUM ON APPOINTMENTS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister give us some indication of what kind of time line he has in mind, that is, when we might see some proposals from the Government? In view of the fact that some action is planned, will the Prime Minister give us the assurance that no more people will be appointed to the Senate so that, when that day comes, as it must now come, for reform of the Senate, we will not have to pay for the retirement of more Conservatives as well as of all the Liberals?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can give my hon. friend the assurance that there will be action taken soon. I know that all Canadians feel a great deal of dismay at the fact that the Liberal members of the Senate, who are members of the Liberal caucus, have repudiated their own Leader and have refused to follow what the Leader of the Opposition has stated. That, of course, is unacceptable. We want to encourage the Leader of the Opposition as much as we can.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LABOUR RELATIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: I can see, Mr. Speaker, that it is a clear case of reform for doing nothing, and abolition for doing something.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the Minister of Labour, or rather should I say the minister of management?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: My question is for the minister of management.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. The Government, through the Minister of Labour, has joined with the management of the CBC in axing 1,200 positions-


Charles Joseph Clark: Take a deep breath.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -without even the decency of the labour management committee required by his own Ministry of Labour code. How can the Minister move expeditiously to facilitate the firing of 1,200 workers when he should, in fact, be acting
with sensitivity in working with the union and seeking some other way of saving the jobs of workers?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that the dismissal was a CBC management decision. This Minister's responsibility is to interpret the Canada Labour Code. This remains a responsibility of this Minister, when a collective agreement signed by two parties is the same, or has the same effect as pertinent legislation. I am sure the Hon. Member would agree that whenever possible a document signed by two parties should be honoured over and above legislation.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister quite clearly knows that he is violating his own Canada Labour Code. Is this the standard which he is setting? Is this an example which his Government is setting for private businesses across the country which fall under the Canada Labour Code-a violation of his own Canada Labour Code according to the arbitrators on the issue?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am very concerned about the Hon. Member's understanding of the Canada Labour Code. I thought it would be more perfect than it is. The fact is that the arbitrator, who made a decision prior to the decision to grant the waiver, confirmed that the collective agreement signed by management and the unions involved had the same effect or similar impact as the Canada Labour Code. I would, therefore-now and in future-favour a collective agreement, signed by two parties, over legislation.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Northumber-land-Miramichi (Mr. Jardine) on Tuesday, February 26, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) on Tuesday, February 26, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
REINSTATEMENT OF FRIENDLY G/^ATTELEVISION PROGRAM


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) on Tuesday, Febru-
February 27, 1985

ary 26, does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following Bills without amendment: Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority; Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto; and Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
February 27, 1985 Sir:
1 have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 27th day of February, 1985, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain Bills.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere, Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from the students of Centennial College in Scarborough, endorsing the government policy to participate Financially in the NASA Space Platform Program.
Petitions


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting a petition signed by 15,742 residents of the metropolitan area. The signatures were obtained through the good offices of a program called "Bonjour Montreal", broadcast by CJMS. The petitioners object to the excessive and unconscionable increases in the price of gas and heating oil, a situation that is putting a considerable burden on all consumers in Quebec. The petitioners humbly pray that Parliament ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) to intervene in this case so that the situation can be normalized as soon as possible.
I herewith present this petition and recommend that the Government act upon it as soon as possible.


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present to the House a petition signed by 21,400 Canadians calling for a national referendum permitting all citizens the right to express their wishes regarding the reinstatement of the death penalty for capital murder.
This petition is sponsored by the Vancouver Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Veterans' Association and was conducted over the last year.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from concerned citizens. Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada will be meeting the President of the United States in Quebec City in March 1985, the petitioners request Parliament to call upon the Prime Minister to make it abundantly clear to the President of the United States that Canada flatly refuses to consider voluntary cut-backs in softwood lumber exports into the U.S. market and that any attempt to limit Canadian imports into that market or other forest products into the U.S. market would be viewed as a matter of grave concern to Canada and certainly would not be tolerated by the Canadian Government.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to present to this House a petition signed by a number of my constituents who object to budgetary cutbacks at the Wildlife Service.
My constituents are asking the Minister to reverse his decision and restore these programs.

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry



FISHERIES AND FORESTRY


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to move concurrence in the third report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, which is Sessional Paper No. 331-8/5.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the committee has considered a great deal of evidence regarding CN's twin-tracking project which, as I think most Hon. Members know, is a $16.5 billion project related to a great extent to the Crow rate legislation passed by the House during the last Parliament.
The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry has unanimously concurred in and recommended to the House what we are considering today. It involves the following motion which was passed by the committee:
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry recommend to the House of Commons that there be a one year postponement of the CNR twin-tracking project while the social and environmental impact of the 36 Indian bands most directly impacted by this project are assessed; and
That the economic justification for the CNR twin-tracking be made available to the Alliance of Tribal Councils; and
That an objective evaluation of the many potential impacts on native people living on the Fraser river and depending on the salmon resource has been evaluated.
It continues:
That at the same time the alternative of single tracking be studied by way of the application of the latest railway transport technology available.
We have heard a great deal of evidence. I know there is a great deal of ongoing work on the government side on the part of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) regarding this matter.
I know that in the few minutes before three o'clock, there seemed to be a great deal of alarm on the government side about proceeding with concurrence in this motion. However, I think all Members of this House will understand the urgency of proceeding with this motion today when I put a few relevant facts on the record.
The first and most significant is that CN plans to proceed with the Ashcroft subdivision miles 59 to 69 on Friday of this week. I had hoped to obtain a commitment from the Government that it would not proceed with the Order in Council for allowing that CN action under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and other pieces of federal legislation, which I am led to believe will be signed tomorrow. In the moments immediately prior to three o'clock, I received a variety of messages from various Parliamentary Secretaries and others that something else might in fact be going on.
There is important evidence that we heard from the Alliance of Tribal Councils of British Columbia and important information we heard from fishermen, as an expression of the concern there is in British Columbia that the interests of native people have not been dealt with fairly, particularly by the previous Government.
I do not intend to say that this matter has suddenly arrived on our doorstep. This problem has been brewing in British Columbia for five years since the project began in 1981. No one has taken it seriously, neither the Department of Indian Affairs, nor the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, nor the Department of Transport, nor, in particular, CN. I have seen no evidence that CN has in any way fairly negotiated or dealt with the Indian people who are most directly affected, or those communities in terms of the wide variety of issues that I intend to raise in the next few minutes.
We heard these witnesses. It was following an excellent presentation by the Allied Tribal Councils of British Columbia, who represent Indian people in about 50 per cent of British Columbia, that there was a unanimous recommendation. All members of the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party who were represented on that committee, one of the largest standing committees of this House, voted unanimously.
There are a couple of other important points that are salient to the debate today. First, is or is not the Government going to come forward with the Order in Council in the next 24 or 48 hours to allow this project to proceed? It would place ballast and tunnelling muck into the Thompson River, a river system combined with the Fraser system that provides somewhere between 40 and 50 per cent of the salmon stock in British Columbia.
The second point is the EARP process. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, will not be provided until the next month with the Environmental Assessment Review Panels' recommendations in their preliminary report. Those same Ministers will not be provided with the final recommendations of FEARO or EARP until the summer.
Here we have a process where native people have been refused involvement. At this point I would like the House to realize what kind of an attitude CN is taking toward Indian people in British Columbia. I wish to quote from a July 26, 1984, letter to Mr. Connelly, the Chairman of the panel on CN twin-tracking. That letter is from Mr. Hostland, the professional engineer responsible for the plant expansion program. Here is what he had to say about the involvement of Indian people in British Columbia in the process. I quote from page 2:
However, at the same session, the Panel heard requests for access to the design process from native groups and other interested groups. These groups want to infiltrate the process, each for their own reasons. CN Rail feels that any such distractions-
He calls them distractions, the involvement of Indian people in having rail lines ram through their reserves, through their historical burial grounds. CN left bones from previous grave
February 27, 1985

sites lying on the rail tracks the last time it came through. The letter continues:
CN Rail feels that any such distractions would interfere with the present smoothly working system and may ultimately destroy its operation. CN Rail cannot support this interference and does not feel there is a legislated obligation to do so.
CN may think that under the Railway Act passed at the turn of the century it can run through Indian reserves, dump ballasts in the Thompson and do whatever it wants to the Fraser system. However, the people in British Columbia are not going to sit idly by and see a project that has not been properly evaluated jammed down the throats of British Columbians.
I am not standing in this House on behalf of my Party to say that we are opposed to getting increased rail capacity. In British Columbia we realize, whether we are talking about the Port of Prince Rupert or the Port of Vancouver, that there is a legitimate need for increased rail capacity. We had witnesses before our committee who revealed to us that, through the joint utilization of CN and CP trackage, we can increase rail capacity by 300 per cent. We had Mr. Walker, the Vice-President of CN, before our committee two weeks ago. To add insult to injury, we learned from him under cross-examination that the total amount of time and money that CN put into evaluating the joint utilization of track was, one person for six months to evaluate alternatives to a $16.5 billion project. I say that is not good enough.
Transport Canada has not looked into the options for this kind of twin-tracking since 1977. It is important in terms of today's debate that the government side, albeit there will be some short-term embarrassment and a great deal of work required by a variety of Departments, will pull this matter back together and deal with the fisheries issue. There has been no full system hydrology done on the Thompson or on the Fraser. Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for ensuring that that kind of comprehensive and cumulative hydrology is done. I see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in here. Let me point out from the Government's own Environmental Assessment Review Panel-


Mr. Fraser:: I am not only here, I am listening.


James Ross Fulton: The Minister is listening as well. Let me point out a few of the impacts that the Environmental Assessment Review Panel found. They are concerned about the blockage and delay of migration of fish, the reduction of cross-section area and consequent increase in river velocity and change in flow behaviour, and the loss of rearing or holding habitat. On that point I would like to remind Hon. Members that CN has long been promising no net loss, in fact net gain of habitat when it constructs. Well, CN twin-tracking is not just in the Fraser Valley. CN twin tracking goes from Redpass to Prince Rupert and between Terrace and Prince Rupert, and it is estimated that we have lost 13 per cent of the fish habitat on the north bank of the Skeena River. That is between the Department of Highways and CN, but not a square inch of that habitat has been replaced. That project has been under way for five years.
Fisheries and Forestry
The report goes on to say that they are concerned about the loss of spawning or rearing habitat, the alteration of river velocity and flow behaviour, resulting in downstream scour or deposition, the loss of feeding areas, infilling of shallows, downstream scour, loss of rearing and holding habitat, the placement of rip-rap and increased bank roughness, the lowering of water quality and spawning conditions, the loss of fish-holding pools, the loss of or hindered access to fishing sites, the loss of landing sites for river recreation, and the loss of aesthetic quality.
It goes on to other impacts, including the loss and delay in migration, the loss of spawning and rearing habitat, the possibility of flooding, erosion, ice damage, and in terms of wildlife and collisions with wildlife, the policy in dealing with that. What is CN's practice for the control of deep slopes on the rail line? What are the present practices with regard to rock and other ballast? What is the composition and toxicity of the flange lubricant? There are all kinds of questions that have been raised, legitimate questions to which CN has not responded. Government departments that are responsible have not dealt with them effectively.
Let me deal with Orders in Council, which really brings this to focus today. The Minister of Transport within hours will be seized of his obligation to CN-and CN considers him obliged to it-to provide the Order in Council. Let us look at the Orders in Council in relation to the CN twin-tracking in British Columbia. Between mile 123.23 and mile 128.23, the Albreda subdivision, four miles of Order in Council along riverbanks; miles 3.82 to 4.04, 6.69 to 6.72, the Clearwater subdivision, .3 miles of river lost; bridge at mile 8.3, Ashcroft subdivision, mile 109.56 to 109.73, Yale subdivision, another one-fifth of a mile of river lost; and mile 112.47 to mile 112.61, Yale subdivision, another fifth of a mile lost. Those are Orders in Council passed after this House in its wisdom had put legislation forward. I remind the Minister of Transport, even though he is not here, that he is tending now to use Orders in Council where he should not. He is providing to the M/V Arctic an Order in Council allowing that tanker to go up into the Canadian Arctic in Zone I ice, knowing full well that that tanker is not allowed to go into that area under the Arctic Water Pollution Prevention Act.


An Hon. Member:: Jimmie, you're off the issue.


James Ross Fulton: I know I am. I just wanted to throw that in to remind the Minister of Transport that I am following his affairs.
I have here a letter from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dated January 11, 1985, to Mr. John Sam, a witness who appeared before our committee. The letter in part reads as follows:
CN Rail is apparently unwilling to provide us with the Minutes for the meeting. I was not provided with any documents, such as Environmental Design Reports, Minutes of past meetings, or attendant studies, and this has made it very difficult for me to present the notes in a really organized fashion.

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
The letter that was sent to John Sam came from the public and intergovernmental relations section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I assume that a copy of that letter has been provided to the Minister. CN is not providing the necessary documents, studies and relevant information to those people who are directly impacted.
Let us take a look at some of the other issues that have been raised by the Environmental Assessment Review Panel. Again, the Ministers responsible for this project, particularly the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and, to a great extent as well, the Minister of Transport will not receive the final report of FEARO, our own government agency, the Environmental Assessment Review Panel, until the middle of the summer. This project is supposed to begin this Friday. I understand that the equipment required to dump ballast into the Thompson River is at site. The Thompson River is one of the most important salmon rivers in the world, not only North America.
What are some of the long-term issues that have been raised by our own officials who have heard witnesses? They have asked if there is a capacity problem. Transport Canada has not looked at this matter for 10 years. We have heard from witnesses that by making use of the CN and CP track and by making better utilization of the Port of Prince Rupert, we could have a 300 per cent increase in capacity. Is there a capacity problem? That has not been resolved.
What about the communities? What about Kamloops and Ashcroft? What about the Oregon Jack Band, members of which appeared as witnesses and are deeply concerned about what has happened in the past? Their grave sites have been dug up; the bones thrown all over the place. Their orchards have been taken over. They are being driven off their land.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Thirty-six tribes.


James Ross Fulton: That is right. Thirty-six bands are affected along with the sports fishermen and others who make use of the river.
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that neither you nor I could throw one shovelful of dirt into the Thompson River without being charged under Section 33(4) of the Fisheries Act. We are not allowed to put materials into flowing water or the ocean that are deleterious to fish. Flowever, CN has all kinds of special rights.
What about land use and resource issues? What about Indian lands? We have not even dealt with the constitutional issue of aboriginal rights in this debate, nor do I think it is necessary to do so. However, in terms of those reserves that have been allocated, CN has already taken more land than it is allowed to under existing legislation. Now it is being told it has no rights and cannot get documents. Indian Affairs will not give it documents. Representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were not allowed to participate in the technical working group until we began our hearings on this matter, five years into the process.
The rights of Canadians have been abrogated and the House has a responsibility to put this project on hold and, either through an inquiry process or through the appointment of someone of very high calibre, to pull together the disparate issues here. There are questions of full river system hydrology, questions of bank stabilization, questions of use. Do we need the capacity to be developed in that way? Is it correct that CN, as it told the parliamentary committee, can proceed only in that way right now? This is a $24-million section. We are talking about 160 person-months of employment. We are only asking the Government to suspend 160 person-months of employment. That is what will be needed for the Ashcroft subdivision.
There are other issues to be discussed. What about heritage resources? These resources have not yet been completely evaluated. What is the real impact on fisheries? We have heard from trustworthy witnesses from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans that the impact is not that great. However, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans of all people should recall what McTaggart-Cowan said about the Arctic, that is that the destruction of many of our resources occurs by insignificant increments. Perhaps the loss of a few hundred yards of habitat between mile 59 and mile 69 is not that great a loss. However, I will turn to the specifics of that subdivision in a moment.
CN has been allowed to proceed. We heard from the Vice President of CN that if we went for joint track usage between CN and CP, then a second track would be required by 1992. Everyone in the House must understand that the converse is true. The double-tracking issue is not the only issue before us. CP will come before the Minister of Transport indicating that it knows that CN's own evidence is that by 1992, we will have to look at the matter all over again.
We must look at the cumulative impact of rail lines, highways, hydro lines and oil pipelines. We must look at the impact of Weyerhaeuser dumping its residue at Kamloops. We must look at the entire system. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans knows the impact that there has already been on the Fraser River estuary from raw sewage and from bark from logs stored in the fresh water to keep the touritos out of them. There has been the dumping of debris from municipalities all the way up the Fraser Canyon.
Those are not the only issues before us. What about wildlife? What has CN done? Where the tracks go through our national parks, CN and CP are two of the largest harvesters of wildlife in Canada. They kill bighorn rams, grizzlies, elk, caribou, deer, foxes and moose. What is being done? They have not spent one plugged nickel trying to figure out ways of building exits from the tracks so that some of the larger ungulates can get off the tracks when the snow gets deep.
What about tourism and recreation? CN and the Department of Transport have not taken those into account. We must look at these kinds of things.
What about water? The Environmental Assessment Review Panel has determined that there will be additional scouring, increased velocity and the movement of huge amounts of sediment. What about cross-river-bank hydrology questions in
February 27, 1985

which ballast is put on one side of the river turning the river over to the other side, scouring into the land on the other side and then moving sediments down? This changes water quality and destroys habitats. It has an effect on the entire economy of British Columbia.
There are other issues. What about the hazards of toxic fill? We are just getting regulations now for the marking of cars and the moving of toxic and hazardous materials through that area. Why is it that in almost all of the plans of CN, additional sidings are being built on the river side? Why are we not looking at some of the options that were raised by witnesses? What about trading land with the B.C. Department of Highways? Automobiles can move up and down steeper slopes. Railway cars require good, flat, low gradient in order to be competitive and operational. We have not looked into those kinds of things and the Government of Canada has a responsibility to do so. This is a good year in which to do that.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) are saying that we cannot move anything through Thunder Bay and that the number of cars moving to Prince Rupert and Vancouver is down. What better time than now to undertake this task? I would tell government Members that we must call the previous Government to task for this. It is the one that delivered to us this god-awful mess, and that is about as nice a way as I can describe it.
Let me deal with a few specifics relating to the Ashcroft subdivision. I think Members should know about the plight that exists there. If I have only a minute to go, I will have to let someone else put these issues on the record.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I have just indicated that the Hon. Member has one minute left. There is a 10-minute question and answer period following his remarks. I would appreciate it if he would wind up his debate.


James Ross Fulton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Let me sum it up this way: we find ourselves in a very difficult position. I think the Fisheries and Forestry Committee has done a very honourable thing in unanimously endorsing the motion which I have moved today. I know it has put some of its members in a difficult position. I believe they are very honourable Members for having taken what I consider to be the right position on this issue.
The fact of the matter is that the equipment is there. CN plans to move imminently because it claims it will lose a two-year window if it does not proceed immediately. That is a lot of hokum, Mr. Speaker. It is related to the Adams River run. Perhaps during the question period, if some Hon. Member would like to ask me about the Adams River run, I would be more than pleased to explain about it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions or comments?
Fisheries and Forestry


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, after an excellent presentation on the problem that not only the fishery industry but native people as well will be facing as a result of the about-to-be-made decision of the Government, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he would elaborate on some of the concerns which the Alliance of Tribal Councils expressed before the committee, and perhaps make reference to the relationship of this particular project and its approval with the Adams River salmon run.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to deal with the Adams River run. That is really the crux of the CN argument. A letter from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicates the window within which this project should proceed. It reads:
The last date that this department would allow construction on the Ashcroft subdivision, mile 59-69, is September 9, 1985. It must be noted however, that historic records indicate that water levels would become too high to allow construction on or about May 31, 1985.
This particular section of twin-tracking is ten miles long and it is called the Ashcroft subdivision. For the most part, it runs along the Thompson River. The reason it would require a two-year delay for that particular section is that this year high water is expected in May, and next year the Adams River run would be in the river, which would make construction impossible. That is the reason for the two-year window.
The reason there is great interest in terms of the twin-tracking on this particular section-and the twin-tracking runs from Valemount down to the Thornton Yards in Vancouver- is that it is the longest single section of single track which is left within the whole of the twin-tracking. There are no portals and there is no place for trains which CN moves-which are 6,000 feet in length-to move off the tracks to allow trains which are going in the other direction to pass. It is a real problem. We are caught between a rock and a hard place. There are other sites within that section of single track that CN could proceed with within the two-year period. We were told by many of the witnesses who came before the committee that it would not create a situation which would not allow trains to go to Vancouver if they were not allowed to proceed. They would not go that far. They said that they were saturated, but many rail lines in Canada are saturated.
The concern of the Nl'akapxm Nation, and the Alliance of Tribal Councils that they represent on behalf of the 11 tribes within their nation, is that a total of 52 reserves would be affected by this project. I could speak at length about the horrible things which have happened in the past, but I do not think we have to dig into that. I believe we must deal with the present. 1 believe that the tribal councils have a very legitimate reason for being concerned about how they have been excluded from the process by Transport Canada, CN, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and that their rights either in appearance or in reality are not being dealt with. As Members of Parliament and as Parliament we have a responsibility to respond immediately to the concerns by delaying the signing of the Order in Council. I think the Minister of Transport, in

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
good faith, will do that. The Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry will be travelling to hear witnesses on the subject at the end of next month. The Standing Committee on Transport will be going there in the middle of March. So I think Parliament is moving on a terrible problem which was delivered to us by the former Government.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments which were made by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I would like to ask him a couple of questions.
Does he have an indication of the cost of changing the existing rail proposal? He made reference to seeking alternatives, and indeed those alternatives exist. Could the Hon. Member give the House an example of the costs of those alternatives?
I would also appreciate an indication from the Hon. Member a to the absence of involvement of the former Minister of the Environment and the former Minister of Transport. What could they have done to ameliorate or prevent what has suddenly now been thrust upon this House?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the actual Ashcroft subdivision and the actual evidence which was given by Mr. Walker, who is the Vice-President of CN, is that that particular site is the least expensive within the entire section. In the actual construction it would involve $24 million and 60 person-months. In total, it would involve 180 person-months. It is separated in that some of the work will be done by running trade gangs and some parts of the project will be contracted by the Government through the tendering process, with the lowest bidder doing the actual ballasting and other work.
In terms of the second question, I think that is the crux of the matter. The former minister of Transport, over a period of years, could easily have dealt with this matter by getting involved with the B.C. Department of Highways. In that particular section there are several options, because there are other areas where secondary lines could have been placed. The provincial Department of Highways has some of the best land, which is very flat. As the Hon. Member knows because he comes from the Kootenay area, in terms of rail line there has to be as low a grading as possible, particularly where heavy equipment is being moved. Otherwise, the impact on the equipment and rail line would be far too heavy.
The former Government, because of its general attitude toward western Canada, sloughed it off and let it go. It was not until the project was three years old that the EARP process actually started. That is the reason the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans cannot obtain the final report. The final report will not be received until this summer, therefore, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment cannot respond to the global problems of the whole project.
In terms of this particular situation, we are caught between a rock and a hard place. From listening to the evidence of CN and listening to the evidence of other witnesses, it it my view that this will not hinder the movement of Canadian products to port. The only thing the witnesses have indicated is that
they are in a state of saturation. They would not say that, without proceeding with the Ashcroft subdivision, we would lose the movement of cargo. They also did not say that there were not other parts of the project within the Ashcroft-Kam-loops area that could be proceeded with to provide the portals that they require. They do not have as many permits in place for other sections of the line, but I think that is something which the various Ministers who are involved could move on very quickly if one of the other sections was not proximate to a water system or to water-fowl habitat. I think we could move quite quickly, in concert with the Province of British Columbia, to obtain on an urgent basis the required permits and approvals for other sections which are farther away from the Thompson-Fraser system. What is really bringing this to a head is that we are talking about the impact on reserve land where negotiations have not taken place to resolve the problem. There have not been any other lands offered nor any kind of process. That must be dealt with.
I am very concerned about the fishery. Witnesses have told us, in terms of the individual project, that we are only losing some pink salmon habitat which is proximate to Chinook spawning areas. Of course, the Chinook are the mainstream spawners in the Thompson River and do not go out into the smaller creeks. I think those issues can be dealt with legitimately. I do not think we are in as tough a position as some Members of the House tried to lead me to believe earlier today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period for questions and comments has now terminated. I will recognize the Hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) on debate.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put this whole debate into perspective. The first thing which is important for the House to remember is that the Party which I represent-when in opposition and during the election campaign last summer- insisted that it was going to attempt to make Private Members more relevant. That means the committees of the House, which are comprised of Private Members, would deal with an innumerable number of problems which concern the well-being of our country.
I have to say to the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who is a personal friend and a diligent Hon. Member of this House, that he had every right to put the motion he did to the standing committee, after hearing evidence from the Canadians who came before it to advise it on the issues which are at stake. As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member should be commended for his motion. However, it is also important that this House and the country understand that the committee, which naturally was made up of an overwhelming majority of Conservative Members, supported that motion. I think it is important to say that before I even begin to respond to my hon. friend, and I do not use the word "friend" in the polite sense but in the sincere sense, as he well knows. It is very
February 27, 1985

important to realize that this was a unanimous recommendation of a committee of this House. I am deeply conscious of the fact that I have on many occasions advocated greater independence of committees.
I am now responding as a Minister of this Government to a motion which the committee has put forward, and while I give full credit to the Hon. Member who made the motion, I am quick to point out again that the committee itself, with its majority of Conservatives, endorsed that motion. So I take the motion very seriously, not only because a majority of Conservatives endorsed it, but because it comes from a committee of this House. I have been here almost long enough to ask Hon. Members to understand when I say that I feel now I have become a part of this place and that I have great respect for the committee which heard the evidence and agreed to this motion.
My friend, the Hon. Member for Skeena, said that we were between a rock and a hard place. He is articulate. I don't know if he is a poet but he does have a flair for words and occasionally he delights this House, sometimes terrifies it, and when he is not at his best, infuriates it. My friend has put the position of this House of Commons of Canada very aptly as "between a rock and a hard place", and it has nothing to do with the fact that we are clearing rock in that narrow confine known as the Thompson Valley. The Hon. Member's motion is understandable and legitimate. The effect of it is not that there would be a one-year deferral but that there would be two years of no construction whatsoever in this particular part of the Thompson River. That does create some problems. My hon. friend knows full well that in British Columbia we have 15 per cent unemployment. That is the official figure. In fact, it is greater than that. He and I have fought long and hard, side by side, on British Columbian issues, and I acknowledge that fact with a certain degree of pride. I believe that we will continue to do so in the future. The Hon. Member knows as well as I do that we have some very serious economic difficulties in our province and he also knows that every commercial enterprise which was ever invented will say that it should go ahead with what it has planned because of the financial and economic implications. I see the Hon. Member nodding his head with a kind of bemusement. I agree full well with the Hon. Member that we are between a rock and a hard place and because we both understand that, I think that we can have some kind of communion today is this chamber.
I am not particularly proud of the record of Canadian National in this case. I probably do not now it as well as I would like to in terms of detail, but yesterday I received a telex from our follow native Canadians who pointed out the number of times that they had asked Canadian National for information and had not received it.
I will say to the Hon. Member for Skeena that I was impressed with his speech and that I am not impressed with the management of Canadian National on this issue over the last couple of years. But saying that does not get us away from the situation which my hon. friend described as "between a rock and a hard place". I know that Canadian National can
Fisheries and Forestry
tell a committee that it sent out a lot of communications. It has a written record, which, in the most narrow technical sense, can demonstrate that it asked the natives what they wanted to do. And if all one looked at was the record, written as it is, one could say that the natives had their chance to be consulted and they did not take it. But I can understand the difficulties of Canadian National. It is not, after all, an enemy of the country.
The difficulty I am in is that I have to say to Canadian National that just putting it on the record is not enough, not when we are dealing with our native people. For that matter, it is not enough when we are dealing with anyone. This Government is committed to consultation, to trying to get along with people and trying to enter into an era of reconciliation in this country. It goes far beyond just making sure memos are sent to people. So I say to my friend, as to one who is another British Columbian like myself who cares about that province just as much as I do, that I am not here to hold any particular brief for the way CN, or anyone else, handled this problem. Neither am I here to defend-to use the Anglican confessional-"the sins of omission or commission" of the past of several Departments. I am not here to fight the last election, but it is astounding to me to find that a new Government is faced with this kind of situation with our native people.
I was in my hon. friend's riding a week ago because, as I have said, one cannot be a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans unless one goes where the fish and the fishermen are. The Hon. Member will understand that. But I was in Prince Rupert a week ago and I met with representatives of the native people on this very issue, as the Member well knows. It is astounding to me that a new Government is now faced with this wretched situation. We are almost in a position that no matter what we do, we are going to be assailed by somebody. My friend knows exactly what I am talking about. The one-year moratorium is not a one-year moratorium; it is a two-year moratorium because of the Adams River run. I see my hon. friend nodding.
Given the fact that a lot of mistakes have been made, and a lot of basically decent Canadians have kind of badly managed this thing, we are faced with the question of what do we do now. With the tremendous respect I must have for the committee, and given the fact that I have on many occasions stated with no equivocation whatsoever my determination to do what I can in public life to advance the legitimate claims of our fellow Canadians who are Indian or native, I am in a difficult position today. I do not deny it and I do not run away from it.
I had the advantage of an extensive briefing yesterday from the various departments on this issue, Mr. Speaker. I did not use those evocative words that the Hon. Member for Skeena did of being between a rock and a hard place, but I said that there are two choices. We can decide to do nothing for two years, with all of the economic implications that may well involve, or we can go ahead and be immediately hit by an application for an injuction in the courts. There is already an

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
action under way, which will undoubtedly go to the Supreme Court of Canada because it affects the whole basis of native claims. Anyone in this country who thinks that this issue is going to go away is absolutely dreaming. I give this House full notice that it is not going to go away. Provincial Governments are not going to be able to kick it under the rug. Corporations are not going to be able to ignore it. No one is, because it is with us. It is probably one of the great issues we are going to have to face in the next decade, just as keeping the country together was the issue we have had to face for the last 15 years. With the Almighty willing and a little bit of goodwill, we got through that one.
I am acutely aware that every native Canadian with any sense of what is going on in the country, and most of them have that sense, is going to be listening very carefully to how I respond to my hon. friend. The best response I can give because it is the only one, is this. Given the respect I have for the committee and the Member who has just spoken, as well as the deep respect I have for the cause of our native people, perhaps there is the possibility of a compromise. Maybe there is some way in which, with a bit of help from the Government, from my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), as well as myself and the Department of Transport, we could establish a joint management group or committee or something in which we, admittedly belatedly, brought some of our distinguished fellow British Columbians from the native community into a day-by-day management committee which could oversee what work was acceptable this summer and what work was not.
As my friend has so accurately and eloquently pointed out, the basic complaint is that it is not just a case of our native people feeling they were not consulted. In truth they were not consulted. Oh, people went through the motions to get it on the record, but I am a lawyer and I understand all about getting things on the record. I do not think they were consulted in an appropriate way. My plea to my hon. friend, not from a position of having to touch the cap or bend the knee, not at all, is that we try to find our way out of this spot between the rock and the hard place.
It does not diminish Government or Ministers to say that we are in a dilemma. That is something this country has not heard for many years. I have no apologies for saying to the Canadian public, as I am saying now because this is broadcast everywhere, that we are in a dilemma. We do not have some magic answers. There is nothing wrong with saying that sometimes governments are not omniscient, that this is a very difficult problem and it will not be solved by myself or my colleagues making arbitrary decisions. It has to be solved with some goodwill, some wisdom and some practical application of common sense; just as I think the committee members applied those elements to the motion as they started to listen to some of the evidence.
I know my time is nearly up, Mr. Speaker, but I want to put this to the House. I am very pleased that my colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, is here,
and I am frankly pleased that there are so many Members in the House because this is an important matter.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Minister's time has expired. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on a question.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the remarks of the Minister. I want to make a comment to which I hope he will respond. I moved this motion in committee, and one of the things which broke the camel's back was the role of the department of Fisheries. It did not act in this matter as a guardian of the resource; it was almost an advocate of CNs project. There was no increase in resources to investigate, supervise or monitor this project, none whatsoever. This is not a single incident and the Department refused to examine it. It was looking at the CN and CP double-tracking, and we are looking at the world's largest salmon river and the incredible value it has to western Canada and to the country as a whole.
There is in-filling and pollution on the river. The Department only examined this as a single event. It depended on company and other resources to investigate and monitor. It used dated studies. On the whole, Mr. Speaker, the committee lacked confidence in the Minister's officials when they appeared before the committee. There was failure to provide resources and, I think, confusion about what their role was. Given the closeness of the change in government, I do not think this was the fault of this or the previous Government. I would like to hear whether the Minister intends to develop a more responsive role in his own Department to deal with this project and others.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think I made an error earlier. I referred to the Hon. Member for Skeena as the Private Member who moved the motion in committee. I seem to have been in error, and I regret that. I think that the civility of the House demands that we give credit where credit is due. That was an error on my part, and I am sorry. That does not take anything away from the nice things I said about the Hon. Member for Skeena.


Raymond John Skelly: How about the seconder of the motion? Does he get a little credit too?


John Allen Fraser: I will give credit to the seconder. I am sure that in the time available someone will draw the attention of the House to that.
I will address the question posed by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). He asks what my attitude is toward the relations between my Department and our native Canadians. I think the attitude is commendable. There are grievances which I believe are founded in sound legal arguments. I think they must be solved. I do not accept the position of those who say that even to discuss this is ludicrous and is reaching back into the centuries. I know there are those who take that position.
February 27, 1985

The solution to the problems is very difficult indeed. Under the law I am mandated to support this resource on our West Coast and in the interior of our province. I have told our fellow native Canadians that my first responsibility is to get the resource back, and then we can talk about sharing it. I am in complete and utter accord with the principle that these claims must be settled somehow. I have no patience whatsoever with those who indicate that this is a superficial or whimsical issue. I believe it is very important. I think it goes right to the question of the kind of morality we have in this country with regard to how we deal with each other.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) completely ignored the role of the Department of Fisheries in what almost appeared to be a failure to protect the resource. We appreciate the incredible importance of that land claim issue. However, I would point out to the Minister that he has obviously forgotten to mention that all British Columbians and people of Canada depend on the protection and longevity of that river and the resource in it. He did not once mention what he would be doing with his Department to improve its role in this matter.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to the House and to the Member because I did not mean to avoid that issue. I am determined to pursue a policy of net gain of habitat in British Columbia. The Member and his colleagues never heard that before from a federal Fisheries Minister. I am intensely concerned about that aspect of the issue. My Department does not see the worth of endangering the total supply of salmon, steel-head and trout in the river. That is not the only issue for the natives. The issue for them is not just whether this will diminish stock. It is a very personal question of where they can fish. These people have fished in these places for hundreds and hundreds, if not thousands, of years.
I am sorry that I did not touch on that issue adequately before. I want my hon. friend to know where I am coming from. I want him to know that I expect him and his colleagues to push me to ensure that as long as I am asked by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of the country to occupy this position I will not be allowed to forget that my objective is the net gain of habitat.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I will keep my question very short. I am very glad to see Chief Edna Louis here this afternoon listening to this debate. She was one of the witnesses before our committee. I do not want to speak on her behalf although I would like her to be part of the debate.
I want to put something very precise before the Minister. If one looks carefully at the motion which was drafted and passed unanimously by the committee, it will be seen that we have asked that the twin-tracking project be suspended for a year. It was clear on the basis of the evidence given to us by some of the witnesses that some parts of what CN is proposing can never proceed. They are inappropriate sites, not for geographic reasons but because of the proximity of historic native lands in British Columbia. I take full cognizance of what the Minister has said.
Fisheries and Forestry
The reason we are asking for a year, and the reason I am interested in having the Minister expand upon his remarks, is that I do not think it is good enough to have an interdepartmental working committee with members of the Allied Tribal Councils participating. It must be an independent process. They must be given the legal tools required to resolve this matter. They must be allowed to choose alternate sites on the basis of good engineering information. The federal and provincial Governments must co-operate to provide them with appropriate lands. I am not talking about aboriginal title. I am talking about lands impacted by this CN project. At least for the moment, aboriginal title is a separate issue in my mind. I think it should be kept separate in the mind of Parliament, although they may flow together in the coming months and years.
Would the Minister support an independent process with the majority mandate given to the Allied Tribal Councils? Does the Minister support the concurrence motion which is before the House today? It is crucial that Members of the House and the native people affected know whether a Minister of the Crown supports the concurrence of this motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order please. Questions and comments are now terminated. I would like to recognize the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) for debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the House would consent to permitting me to respond very briefly to the question that my hon. friend has asked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the House agree?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, the point my hon. friend makes is completely valid. The proposition that I put forward for discussion does depend on the independence of the committee that would oversee the work. I would support every effort that should be made and every caution that should be taken to ensure that it is in fact independent. I think that is the question my friend asks' He may have seen me trying to get the attention of my friend, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie). I am almost certain that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development would agree with me in that regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, first I ought to explain that it was not my intention to be debating a concurrence motion today in the committee report. I was on the way out when I heard the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) dealing with the matter. I think everything I have to say, at
2562

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
least in part, has either been said at the committee by the Minister, or by some Hon. Members who have spoken previously. I think it might be worthwhile, however, if I made a short intervention to indicate my own participation in this matter.
I do so, first, because I think the motion, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) has already indicated, is a serious motion before the committee. It is a motion of an entirely different dimension from the matter of the role of the committee in relation to matters having to do with the independence and power of committees. In other forums we have talked about the importance of that in relation to reform of this House. I think it is a serious matter and when a committee has dealt so strongly with respect to a particular matter, ought not to be dealt with lightly. Clearly this is a serious motion.
More important, this is a serious matter for Indian people. As Members of this House know, Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in this job for only a brief period of time, that is, five months. I would say that, as an example, Indian concerns and the effects of the development of Indian communities are not being dealt with adequately. That is certainly not news either for this House or in the history of this country.
The history of Canada is littered with evidence of lack of consultation and incredible ignorance of the needs and the rights of Indian communities. I might say in this connection, as I look at the history of my own Department, under the old Government it was excluded from the interdepartmental committee.
I got involved with the matter directly early in December when I received some communication from the Indian communities affected. They asked me to take into consideration some of the effects of twin-tracking. I tried to find out whether my department had been involved in these matters before. It had not in any significant way, unfortunately. I then indicated to the people in my Department that it was necessary to strike up a committee as fast as possible to see if we could deal with the issues that were raised in the communication. I also met with some of the people from the Indian communities involved.
There was consultation, Mr. Speaker. There were two meetings in January and one on February 15 dealing with some 15 specific sites in the one ten-mile stretch. Mention of those things is an indication that, like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Hon. Member for Skeena also indicated I think, there has been very very little done. Here we are at the end of a process instigated by someone who wants to twin-track. We are involved in a process that should have been begun two years ago, or earlier. It is not acceptable as a process. It is unacceptable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I think the Members from British Columbia who spoke are much closer to the matter in terms of their experience than I am and they have stated the situation as well as it can be stated. If I could put it more generally, I think it is long past the time when this House will tolerate any more development, governmental or private sector activities that
continue to ignore the rights and the needs of the Indian people in this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I do not think that I speak for a small number of people in the non-Indian community. Many appreciate the problem. I want to assure the House, whatever may be the deliberations of the House with respect to this committee report and its importance, that the Ministry which I now head will make sure to the best of its ability that the needs of the people who are affected by this proposal will be dealt with in an appropriate way through consultation and, I might say, mediation.
I think a number of Hon. Members have already indicated that perhaps the consultation which has been by and large internal-at least at a late date it was an attempt to grab at something perhaps useful to the event-showed that we ought to move to a phase whereby we have some independence and mediation.
I can say without doubt that if we proceed in the way in which people perceive we are now proceeding, without the appropriate consultation and mediation, then we will rue the day because the communities affected will not tolerate, as we should no longer do, that their needs and rights be ignored.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it has been very useful and helpful to hear the two perspectives of the Ministers involved.
Would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) be more specific about what can be done by the Government, of which he is a Minister, in the very near future to prevent CN from going ahead, and tell us what the Government intends to do? We have been talking about the long term, about consultation and whatnot. But I am sure that what everyone here is concerned about in the immediate sense is what is going to be done in the next little while to prevent CN from pre-empting the unanimous concern first of the committee, and now I take it, the House of Commons, that this action not proceed until the concerns we have recognized today are addressed.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks were intended to deal with the point which the Hon. Member raises. It is not my total purview to divine a course of action. I have attempted to do something in two areas, first, with respect to Indian people in the communities affected, to see whether I could work out a consultation process with my own Department, something that did not exist heretofore. That is proceeding and will continue. People are speaking with my legislative assistant, who is a British Columbian, if not now as we speak then certainly they have done so prior to this moment. Second, I should like to bring some order to the Government's perception on the matter because the lack of participation, lack of organization, and the lack of any positive steps by the previous Government left things in such a situation that the Government's perspective did not have the coherence it ought to have had when the
February 27, 1985

matter began. The second level is to try to make sure that we have a government perspective that reflects the interests that I mentioned earlier.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the amount of goodwill and whatnot has been exceptional in the House today. As well, we saw the recognition of the problems by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and, I would expect, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).
I have a question for the Minister. Something has to be done in a concrete form very quickly. Does the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have on his agenda in the next seven days a meeting with his colleagues, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) to work out solutions to these problems? Will that take place? If the Minister does meet with his colleagues, will the information coming from that be made public quickly?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I met with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) the other day, and on two previous occasions I met with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). It is my understanding that the Minister of Transport will be meeting with Indian communities on Friday in British Columbia. That will be part of the Government's attempt to make sure that it is dealing with the matter in a way in which it should have been dealt with two years ago.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, what I understand is that the Minister said no, that he and the other three Ministers will not be meeting collectively to work out some kind of joint response.


David Edward Crombie: Perhaps we should speak in some other language because what I was saying was that I had already spoken-this is a process; it is not a one-shot effort-with the Minister of Transport the other day. On two previous occasions I spoke with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Minister of Transport will be in British Columbia to speak with Indian communities on the matter, and then we will have another discussion.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister is seized of the urgency of this matter. Within the next 24 to 28 hours the Minister of Transport will come under extreme pressure from CN to sign the Order in Council to proceed with the Ashcroft subdivision. The reason, as outlined to us by CN witnesses, in particular the Vice-President of CN, was that they have legal obligations under the Crow legislation, the Western Grain Transportation Act.
We need to get down to the nitty-gritties here. The interventions and the speeches by both Ministers have been excellent. They have made some of the best comments I have heard in relation to aboriginal matters for many years in the House. As a Minister of the Crown, is he telling us that he will now go to CN and say what the committee recommended, that they
Fisheries and Forestry
cannot go ahead with the Ashcroft subdivision because they may have to redesign globally what is left of the twin-tracking? They may have to put some track where the B.C. highway is. They may have to go on to CP lines in some areas. They may have to triple-track in some areas. They may have to do other things. This project is a mess.
We have to tell CN that it has been bulldozing through a project which is crushing native rights and which is having a dramatic impact upon environment, wildlife, heritage sites and the hydrology of the river systems and so on. We have to grasp the moment. One of the Ministers has to go to CN and say, "The gig's up, boys; you are not getting the Order in Council". If this matter has to be fought in the Supreme Court of Canada between the Crown of Canada and the Crown corporation of CN, it will have to be done. The project has to be changed. They cannot ram through those native communities. I think that is what Chief Lewis is here to hear and what Canadians from coast to coast are waiting to hear. We could go on for days gobbledegooking in here, but we do not seem to get to the nub of the issue.
The Minister of Transport is seized with a legal obligation. Within the last 24 hours he would not tell me whether or not he would sign that Order in Council today or tomorrow. That is why I have risen today. I think the Minister will support a fair, independent process to resolve the geopraphical and land issues, as well as the fisheries issues and so on.
However, is the Minister telling the House now that he is arranging a meeting with CN and with his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, who I think will say the same thing to CN-"The gig is up, boys; you are not getting the Order in Council"? Is that what the Minister is telling us?


David Edward Crombie: I hoped that was clear. I indicated to the Hon. Member, as I am sure he is aware, that the authority for the Order in Council rests with the Minister of Transport. It does not rest with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans nor with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It is a matter which he has to take into consideration, given all his obligations.
I have made representations. The Minister of Fisheries makes representations. The Minister of Transport will be meeting on Friday with the affected communities. I think it would be improper and not very productive for me to speculate on what we ought to do following those meetings. I think it is appropriate that we wait until after the Minister of Transport has had those meetings. I will be meeting with the Minister of Transport after that.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the interventions so far have been of such a nature that it will be easy for the House to reconstruct the atmosphere and the nature of the meetings in committee. A considerable sentiment of unanimity emerged from all parties. It is reflected here this afternoon on a broader scale, including the two excellent interventions of the Ministers who spoke in the House. It is this kind of convergence of views which leads me to believe that we have a unique issue here which should be addressed in

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
a unique manner. In a way it could be a turning point in bringing together aboriginal considerations, environmental considerations and transport considerations by way of a consensus that does not often happen in this Chamber.
I was very impressed by the high quality of the reasons given by witnesses who appeared before us in committee. I should like to refer to the first meeting and the submission of the Alliance of Tribal Councils at page 4. I should like to put it on record because it is central and quintessential to what we are debating here. It reads:
The time to study the river is before the work is done, not after. A one year period is needed to analyse the changes in the river and to monitor the movements of the fish over a season. The various locations used by Indian fishermen in response to these changes can also be documented. At the same time, the construction plans of the CNR can be analysed in relation to this information and changes agreed to by the railway and the bands to prevent unnecessary damage.
I submit that this is the absolute quintessence of reasonability. It continues in the next paragraph:
Over 50 per cent of all B.C. salmon stocks originate in the Fraser and Thompson River systems. These stocks have declined drastically over the years as development has occurred along the river valleys. We must know what the additional effects of double tracking will be before the project continues any further. The salmon are an important food source and cultural factor to the Indian people. We also have legal fishing rights along the rivers that were established when the reserves were defined by the Royal Commission in the 1880s. We must have the time to ensure this renewable resource and our rights to it are not lost.
I should also like to put forward the statement of concern expressed by the Alliance of Tribal Councils on page 2 of its document. Again it is a very well reasoned piece. It outlines the reasons for supporting the idea of a moratorium on twin tracking as follows:
1.	Past grievances associated with the first track must be settled to the satisfaction of all Bands before the second track proceeds.
2.	The twin tracking project will destroy fish habitat... and will result in a net decrease in the potential productivity of the Fraser and Thompson river fish runs.
3.	Economic necessity for the second track must be justified.
4.	Alternatives such as joint track usage must be considered before twin tracking proceeds.
This is a very important point, the joint CN-CP tracking alternative, which was not exhaustively studied and explained in the committee hearings. It continues:
5.	All environmental studies must be made available to the Alliance well before construction so as to provide opportunity for review followed by submission of our recommendations to be incorporated into the final design.
Its sixth reason deals with the construction scheduled to begin this year. It indicates that it will result in:
(a)	interference with the Indian property right interest in the salmon fishery due to:
(i)	destruction of spawning grounds and rearing habitat
(ii)	destruction of traditional Indian fishing sites.
(b)	destruction of significant heritage sites including burial grounds.
According to the Alliance of Tribal Councils, the environmental assessment review process was not satisfactory. The first reason indicated to us in committee was that the terms of reference were narrow. Second, the amount of time allotted for a proper assessment was too short. The Alliance was not able
to complete, we were told, its questioning of CN and the Department of Fisheries because enough time was not allotted. Its third reason was the unavailability of project design documents. Also we were told that the panel was to ensure the provision of existing and any additional information to interested parties to allow their participation in the review. However in reality, its submission indicated, that critical information was withheld from the panel and the public by CN Rail. The documentation, which I will be glad to table, states that CN has considerable information on miles 59 to 68, Ashcroft subdivision, which it intends to twin-track starting in 1985, and deliberately withheld this information from the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner).
We all know that these are very complex processes and that they have a momentum of their own. They are extremely difficult to modify or improve unless a deliberate effort is made. We came to the decision of putting forward this motion for concurrence after exhaustive discussions in which members of each Party went through an excruciating analysis of the pros and cons. We arrived at the decision under the most excellent chairmanship of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chil-cotin (Mr. Greenaway), the chairman of that committee. We did arrive at a unanimous decision. Why did we do that? As the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) just said, I suppose we feel that this is not the way to proceed if we are really serious about our relationship with the native people and our respect for their tradition and economy.
Somehow there has to be a turning point. This is the opportunity for providing this turning point and to demonstrate with facts what we say with words. Personally, I was not convinced by the submission made by CN that they had exhaustively studied all alternatives and that they would not be able to find a solution by way of joint track usage, namely by making better use with improved technology of the CP tracks on one side and CN tracks on the other side of the river. This joint track usage, rather than undertaking a twin-tracking program, is a very important potential alternative. It is not a time for pie in the sky civility.
There is also the whole question of the scheduling of trains which needs to be examined in order to determine whether the potential of better scheduling and timing would provide the desired results. I am basing this consideration on a speech made in Calgary on April 25 or 26. The speaker was Roger Phillips, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Ipsco steel plant in Regina. The statement he made really struck me. I quote from his speech:
Railway building... is a mature technology and consequently a mature supply network has been put in place. In fact, the supply network is presently beset with over-capacity.
In committee, we were not convinced by the submission made by CN that this level of over-capacity had been reached. This was one of the basic reasons bringing us today to the House to make a very strong plea to the Government to provide the moratorium being requested so that an exhaustive
February 27, 1985

analysis of all the elements can take place, possibly leading to a solution that will not affect the habitat of the native people, will not disturb their tradition and economy, and will translate into action the concepts and beliefs to which we adhere in so many speeches.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to make a couple of comments and ask the Hon. Member a question. It is interesting and encouraging that we have what seems to be unanimous agreement on the necessity to take action. I cannot understand why we get this unanimous agreement to take action to stop the CN from proceeding quickly at the eleventh house, when a great deal has already been done which cannot be undone.
What concerns me is that when the plans were being made for the double-tracking, Hon. Members on this side were being told every day that we were doing a disservice to the country by holding up the Bill to get rid of the Crow rate. Today we are hearing concerns from the native people about the disastrous effects this project will have on the Fish in the rivers and the serious effect it will have on the lives of the native people.
A Member who just spoke was the Minister of the Environment for some time. I would ask him where the Ministers were when the project was being considered. Where were the senior officials in the Department of Fisheries, the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport? Why were they not raising these questions? Why were Members of Parliament and the Government not being told about the concerns? Why were they not asked to think about these problems and to assess the consequences of what they were doing? Why were they not protecting the people affected by the department which they ran?
It seems that they were working hand in glove with the railways to get this project going and not worrying about the very serious and adverse consequences on the native people, fishermen and others in British Columbia. It is great to hear the Hon. Member agree now that we have to do something. Where were they when it would have been much easier to do things without the tremendous pressure which we now have to try and rectify the situation before it is too late?


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I knew that it was coming. I entered this debate fully conscious that he was waiting for the opportunity to ask that question. It has become a normal practice of NDP Members. I recognize that there is a political motive. It is part of the atmosphere in which we live.
I can only say to him that it troubled me very much, once I became aware of the issue and its implications, that this had taken place and ought to have been the object of a very thorough examination. I only became familiar with the Ashcroft section along the Fraser Valley during a visit to my office by tribal council representatives a month and a half ago. With the benefit of hindsight, you could, of course, do a lot of things better. Having said that, I submit that double-tracking across most of the nation is something that can be done without causing serious environmental damage. I suspect that in some
Fisheries and Forestry
parts of the provinces there will be very little environmental damage.
With hindsight, I would say that perhaps it would have been good administrative practice immediately after the passing of the legislation to have set into motion a commission that would have analysed and identified earlier the delicate, fragile points that the railway would have required for double-tracking or for alternative technologies. That would have been the object of a cumulative or collective set of earth studies which then would have looked at the totality of the fragile points in order to arrive at an environmentally-conscious, economic and native rights-respectful way of resolving that issue. That is the conclusion at which one can arrive with the benefit of hindsight.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned.
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Honour, the Deputy to Her Excellency the Governor General, in the Senate Chamber, His Honour was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
Bill C-l 1, an Act to provide borrowing authority-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-22, an Act to establish the International Centre for Ocean Development and to amend the Financial Administration Act in relation thereto-Chapter No. 6.
Bill C-29, an Act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act-Chapter No. 7.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: Was the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) rising on a question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: No, Mr. Speaker, I was rising for debate.

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry


Mr. Speaker:: There were five minutes remaining for questions and comments. There being no further questions, I now recognize the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) on debate.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on the motion of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. In that this is my maiden speech, I want to say at the outset that I am most pleased and proud to represent the people of the Fraser Valley East constituency in the House. 1 would like to extend to them my sincere appreciation for their expression of faith and confidence in my candidacy. It is a great honour to be their Member of Parliament. I want to assure them that I will spare neither time, talent nor effort in representing them. I give to my constituents my solemn pledge that I will discharge my responsibilities with integrity, honesty and thoughtfulness. It is my intention to be an effective and demanding spokesman in defending their interests. At the same time, I want to assure Members on both sides of the House that I intend to accord to them the courtesy and dignity which befits a Member of Parliament and which the people of Canada rightfully expect.
Fraser Valley East was represented by the Reverend Alex Patterson for over 20 of the last 30 years, and we in the Valley are indebted to him. I am sure all Members of this House will join me in wishing him and his wife a rich and fulfilling retirement.
The riding of Fraser Valley East is large. It is situated between the Fraser River and the international boundary in what is known as the central and upper Fraser Valley. Included in its northern portion is the picturesque mountain region of the Fraser Canyon. The grandeur of the coast and Cascade Mountains, the spectacular canyon and the boiling waters of Hell's Gate, the beauties of the Harrison resort area, and the rich flood plains of the central Fraser Valley, make the riding one of breath-taking splendour. It is indeed a pleasant place in which to live.
Some 110,000 people make their homes in Fraser Valley East. While the largest group-some 50 per cent-are of British descent, we are enriched by the remaining 50 per cent which provide diverse ethnocultural communities. I am proud to represent all of the people. The spirit of fairness and equality, of consultation and consensus, as expressed by this Government, is appreciated by the people in my riding. It is clearly evident that this Government has listened and is listening to the people. We are in a time when the aspiration of the people and the commitment of Government are in harmony. This is the unity which the nation has needed, and that is why there is hope and optimism today.
In this regard, I want to make it known that this Government is not merely saying that it will listen; indeed it is doing so. In the few months since coming to power, the evidence of consultation, consensus-building, and finding solutions through co-operation has clearly been seen.
I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for visiting my riding in November and consulting with the agricultural industry in the Fraser Valley. The visit of the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) to my riding in January to hold consultations and hear the concerns of the local officials was much appreciated. The local elected representatives of the people greatly appreciated that consultation.
The geography of Fraser Valley East almost compels a north-south mindset. It seems that California is more accessible than Alberta. Our union with the provinces of Central and Atlantic Canada, which was confirmed 100 years ago by the completion of Canada's first transcontinental railway, has endured the tensions of a century and has engendered in the people a genuine pride in being Canadian.
The transportation links with the other regions of Canada have always been the symbols of unity for the people of my riding. Highway 401 and the mainlines of the CNR and the CPR through the Fraser Canyon traverse my riding for over 150 kilometres. In addition, the Abbotsford Airport serves as an alternative to the Vancouver International Airport.
The people in my riding very clearly understand that transportation systems are the tangible evidence of a united country. Without them the various regions of Canada would soon experience isolation and would be compelled to develop trade patterns in a north-south direction for the sake of economic survival. In this regard, I would like to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) for the steps he has initiated in bringing back VIA Rail services.
Several bands of natives of the Stalo Nation reside in Fraser Valley East.
The motion which we are debating today came about in an unusual way and quite hastily. Indeed, the motion which was initiated in committee by the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), and subsequently amended by the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), was adopted by the committee after hearing only one group of witnesses representing native bands in the Fraser-Thompson Canyons of British Columbia, who presented their collective and individual concerns about the CN twin-tracking program to the committee on February 7. Although the motion was unanimously adopted, there was mention by some members that other groups, such as Canadian National Railways, the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, should be offered the opportunity to present evidence for the committee's consideration in formulating its position and reporting to the House on the matter in question.
The members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry were obviously moved by the presentations of the native representatives, and in particular by the impending start of CN rail work on a twin-tracking project on the CN Rail Ashcroft subdivision between miles 60 and 69, or thereabouts. This railway work is to start on or about March 1 and will involve placing rock into the wetted perimeter of the riverbank to build up a subgrade on which the second track will be built. Undoubtedly, this early project start date was a principal factor in the committee's consideration in adopting the motion
February 27, 1985

and in the decision to report the matter to the House at the earliest possible date, which was February 12. That was the same day that Environment Canada, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and CN Rail officials appeared to give their testimony to the committee.
To the extent that the motion is now being debated in the House, it serves as evidence that the Government is concerned about the possible environmental, Fishery, social and economic impacts related to the CN twin-tracking work in British Columbia. But the Government has been cognizant of these potential impacts for some time and has set in place various processes to ensure that environmental and other impacts from CN twin-tracking projects would be either eliminated or minimized to the maximum extent possible.
In this regard, I refer to the federal-provincial task force, the technical working group, the steering committee and the federal Government's Environmental Assessment Review Panel, which are all involved with the CN Rail mainline capacity expansion program in British Columbia. Furthermore, and most recently, a joint CN Rail-Indian committee was established to deal with specific native concerns about fishing spots along the Thompson and Fraser riverbanks, access trails to those fishing spots and the heritage sites which might be destroyed or affected by CN construction work.
The point which I am making is that the concerns raised by the native groups were not just recently brought to the attention of the Government by way of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry report and the motion to the House that no processes and mechanisms are in place to deal with the over-all and specific environmental and socio-economic impacts from CN twin-tracking projects. Groups have been in place as far back as 1980, when the CN rail twin-tracking project was introduced.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has the federal responsibility to ensure that the salmon resource is not affected detrimentally by any works, and furthermore, that the salmon habitat and growth of the fishery resource can be enhanced. Testimony received from fisheries officials on February 12 clearly indicated that the expert and scientific expertise that has been and is being brought to bear on CN's project is extensive and that no approvals will be given to CN's project if the risk to the salmon resource is unacceptable.
Many professional fishery and environmental people have been involved. Numerous studies and research activities have been completed and study programs are in place. A lot of dialogue, consultations and deliberations have taken place, many changes have been made to CN designs and much more can be expected along these lines of consultation in the future.
The motion before the House may give an impression that CN twin-tracking work has gone ahead and was being implemented in an irresponsible way as regards environmental and fishery protection and safeguards or that there was a lack of response to the concerns raised by native groups. I hope that
Fisheries and Forestry
my remarks thus far will provide a clarification of the real situation that exists.
I would now like to address the elements of the motion as reported by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. In doing so, I will be referring to pertinent testimony, in my opinion, which was presented by the witnesses that appeared before the committee on February 12. My purpose, Mr. Speaker, is to cause Hon. Members to recognize the need to reflect further on the motion, on its wording and on what may be implied if indeed CN Rail and others involved were to abide by the several elements contained in the motion.
The first element of the motion calls for a one-year postponement of CN twin-tracking while the social and environmental impacts on the 36 Indian bands most directly impacted by this project are assessed. The first point I wish to make concerning this element of the motion is that it appears to be somewhat vague in terms of application and that it makes no implied or explicit reference to the fact that social and environmental impacts, not only on the native groups but on all persons and interests, have been and will continue to be evaluated by responsible agencies. These evaluations would be done either by the federal Environmental Assessment Review Panel, by the federal-provincial environmental and fishery agencies forming the technical working group, or by the joint CN-Indian committee recently established. These committees, Mr. Speaker, will also concern themselves with all of the CN twin-tracking projects planned in the Thompson-Fraser Canyons over the balance of this century and beyond.
The ambiguity of the element contained in the motion relates to whether the one-year postponement is intended to relate to the specific Ashcroft subdivision work which is scheduled to begin March 1, or to any and all remaining CN Rail twin-tracking projects in the future. The ambiguity arises because the Ashcroft project is along a segment of main line on which only two and not 36 Indian bands have reserves adjacent to the CN right-of-way. These bands are the Oregon Jack Creek Band, whose reserve is located at the northernmost end of the CN Ashcroft project, and the Cook Ferry Band at the southernmost end of the Ashcroft project.
Furthermore, as came out in the evidence presented by Fisheries and Oceans officials, as well as by CN officials, a one-year postponement if intended to apply to the Ashcroft project is effectively a postponement of two years to the winter of 1987. This is due to the fact that CN must commence its Ashcroft project work March 1 when water levels are at seasonal lows and, importantly, due to timing restrictions designed to respect the migratory cycle of pink salmon; that is, there is no salmon activity or life expected in the river encroachment sites this winter to May, 1985. CN will not be permitted by Department of Fisheries officials to do any of the encroachment work next year in the winter of 1986. If the one-year postponement refers to all CN projects, then necessary expansion work already started last year and currently under way to completion at Blue River, for example, will be halted.

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
In effect, Mr. Speaker, the one-year postponement of CN twin-tracking is, in reality, a two-year postponement. This delay would affect CN Rail's capacity expansion needs and thereby present risks to the company and the nation that an adequate, efficient and safe rail transportation capability might not be available for shippers and the transport of growing volumes of bulk and other traffic in support of Canada's export business. Furthermore, foreign buyers of Canada's bulk resources, such as coal, grain, potash, sulphur and so on, may take this one or two-year postponement as a signal and reactivate their earlier concerns about Canada's determination and will to demonstrate that our reliability as a supplier of export commodities will be ensured by the railway capacity expansion program and supported by the Government.
Another element of the motion requires that an economic justification for the CN Rail twin-tracking program be made available to the Alliance of Tribal Councils. Hon. Members may recall, and if not, I would like to make them aware, that in the late 1970s the Japanese, the South Koreans and other Pacific Rim countries had been expressing concern that the Canadian railways could not be looked upon as reliable and efficient carriers of various bulk commodities which these offshore countries required and which Canada and its resource industries were most willing to produce and supply. Simply put, these Pacific Rim concerns were justified in that CN and CP railway capacity was being stressed and expansion programs were needed.
The Coal Association of Canada and many other Canadian industries formed a task force on the crisis of western Canadian railway transportation. It was clear at the time that unless the railways undertook a major expansion or a sufficient expansion of their railway capacity, Canada would lose a lot of export business to other competing supplier countries because foreign clients were not interested in buying from Canada if we, collectively, could not assure reliable delivery of coal, sulphur and grains, to name a few important export commodities. Lack of capacity would also affect the operating efficiency of the over-all distribution system, including the ports and railway components. This would be reflected in higher transport costs and Canadian commodity prices.
The question of economic justification of twin-tracking on a project-by-project basis is also a very complex matter which involves not just construction costs but railway system operating and maintenance needs and other factors. The CN testimony indicated that the economics of any particular twin-tracking project is but one consideration in the over-all decision to first choose the location of the particular expansion work and then to decide the best option to build the new capacity, be it encroachment into a river or by tunnelling.
These decision elements, as pointed out by CN in its testimony, have not been unilateral decisions by the corporation. Preliminary conclusions on project location are fully analysed and thence the preliminary construction approach is extensively reviewed and adjusted by the various technical experts in the Government's environmental, fishery and other agencies
through the aforementioned committee. That is, although the economics of any one project are important, the environmental impacts and the fishery impacts are equally important factors considered in finalizing a twin-tracking project location and design.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, one can accept the motion before the House as a means for bringing forward a valid concern of the members of the Fisheries and Forestry Standing Committee. However, as the motion was drafted and adopted by the Committee after hearing only one interest group as witnesses, the motion does not reflect, in my view, the equally valid and considerable testimony to the Committee from witnesses appearing after the motion was reported to the House. While it may be that there could have been some breakdown or some inadequacy in specific consultations between the native peoples and CN and other agencies, I suggest that measures are now being taken to remedy the situation. We have reasonable assurances from the Environment Canada witness that the environmental assessment and review report, expected in March, has identified the consultation level question as an issue and will address this and the related recommendations in its report. I can say to the House that our Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will ensure that CN will make the greatest efforts possible to resolve the issue of inadequate consultation with native groups in the conduct of its twintracking program.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon we heard that the Minister of Transport will be meeting, along with other Ministers, with the native people, bringing to a successful conclusion their concern, yet addressing the issues which they are bringing to our minds.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Are there questions or comments on the Hon. Member's maiden speech?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to say, with respect to the fact that it was the Hon. Member's maiden speech, that it is unfortunate that on the occasion of his maiden speech he had to resort to the bureaucratic argument which someone had passed along to him. It was a very narrow argument and one which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) himself rejected. The Minister was critical of the way things had been handled in the past, yet the Hon. Member gets up and defends the way things were handled in the past. A very odd argument to begin with.
With respect to the two-year issue, if it amounts to a two-year postponement, then so be it. I cannot understand an argument which says that if we are worried that something is bad, let us not postpone it for one year because it might take two years. I mean, if the thing is bad it ought to be postponed indefinitely. That is what we want to find out. If we have to take the time to find out, let us take the time. That is what this motion would provide.
There are three dimensions to this issue that I would like the Hon. Member to comment on. There is the environmental
February 27, 1985

dimension, and the question of the rights of native people on their reserve. In this case it is two reserves and the clarification of just how many reserves are involved in that one subdivision was very useful; I was glad the Hon. Member brought that up. Nevertheless, we are talking about the rights of those two reserves. Thirdly, there is the question of Parliament and its committees.
We have heard a lot of talk about parliamentary reform. Here we now have an opportunity, and I say this as one who has been concerned about parliamentary reform for a number of years now. We have a unanimous recommendation of a committee of the House of Commons. We have had a lot of talk about an increase in the power of committees in this House and about Parliament having more real power over Crown corporations and what really goes on in the life of this country. Here we have an opportunity to make a difference. We can do that by allowing the motion moved by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) to go foward and come to a vote so that this Parliament can say to the CNR, a Crown corporation responsible to the people of Canada through us, that it ought not to go ahead with this project as now conceived.
The days of Sitting Bull have passed. The kinds of things we have said we abhorred that went on in the nineteenth century and other times are things of the past, not things that we are going to repeat over and over and over again on the grounds of the narrow kind of economic arguments advanced by the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) on behalf of some nameless bureaucrat somewhere.
Are we going to take this moment? Are we going to seize this opportunity to be a Parliament and respect the unanimous decision of a committee? Or are we going to blow it? That is what is at stake here this afternoon. Have we any self-respect left as Members of Parliament, as the House of Commons? Do we have any respect for the unanimous decision and recommendation of a standing committee of this House of Commons of Canada, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, which determined that the CNR ought to be instructed not to go ahead with what it now has in mind? If we have any respect for ourselves and for Parliament and for all the rhetoric we have heard so often about parliamentary reform, particularly from Members who are now on the Government side of the House, we will allow this motion to come to a voice vote. We ought unanimously to say yea, let the House of Commons and its committees speak and let Crown corporations and others in the country be accountable.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, while I agree with part of the Hon. Member's comments, I must disagree with others because of some of the actions we are taking. The Hon. Member has heard this afternoon that the Minister of Transport and other Ministers are meeting with the native people who are questioning whether this project should take place. The CNR cannot go ahead until the Minister of Transport signs the Order in Council permitting them to do so.
Fisheries and Forestry
The Hon. Member refers to bringing this motion to a vote this afternoon. If no one stands up to speak on it, then it will be brought to a vote. Nonetheless, I believe all the facts should be brought out into the open. You cannot say you are going to consult if you turn around and do not consult.
This Government which took over on September 4 is trying to say to the people of Canada that we are consulting. People say we are taking too long to take action on things. Well, we will make mistakes and there is no doubt about that. But we will make them with the best of intentions, with all of the facts we can get before us. We are not saying that CN has consulted extensively or done enough. That is why the committee is involved with the native people. Do you want the committee to work or do you not?
We know there is a two-year time lag because of the spawning habits of pink salmon. This is very important and affects more than just my riding or the riding we are discussing. The natives are concerned about this industry as well, and it is for this reason that we will continue to make sure we get all the facts out and on the table.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member not realize that is why we have committees of the House of Commons? It is so they can hear evidence and all the facts and all sides of the story. That is what the committee did in hearing from the CN, the fishermen and native people. So the facts have been placed before a committee of the House of Commons. It is not as if we are talking about something reported in the newspaper. This is evidence given on the record of a standing committee of the House of Commons, which led to the unanimous recommendation we now have before us. So I reject the claim by the Hon. Member that we do not have the facts or evidence before us-unless he wants to impugn the judgment of the committee, because that is what he is doing by bringing up the points he has.
Does the Hon. Member also not think, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about potentially irreversible damage to a river and the salmon habitat, and we are also talking about potentially irreversible damage to the burial sites of native people, that two years is but a blink of an eye in the long historical process involved? If it takes two years to do something like that properly, that is just fine with me and I think it is fine with others. Two years is not a long time when you are talking about irreversible damage. That is something we ought to keep in mind.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, we are not just talking about two years right now. The Hon. Member alludes to that as if it had just come about. Back in the 1970s we know that we lost certain contracts for the export of grain and things like that. We have a responsibility to think about the livelihood of people right across the Prairies, people he also represents. I, too, am very concerned about the native people. A good many of them live in my riding and I am very concerned about this.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: They are laying off people in my riding because they say they have more than enough rolling stock.

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry


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


Ross Belsher: I believe it is time that we continue to go as we are.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We have an over-capacity on the railroad right now.


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised a concern about the motion. He said it was too vague when it talked about the social and environmental impact on the 36 Indian bands most directly impacted by this project and the need for assessment. When Chief Bob Pasco addressed the committee, one of the things he said was this:
I sat as a member of an environmental assessment review panel for over a year until the CNR decided to proceed with the work near Ashcroft through my reserve land without even meeting with my band. I was forced to resign to avoid a conflict of interest between my obligations to the Oregon Jack Creek Indian Band and the need for an objective input into the final report of the panel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The time for questions and comments is now terminated.


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be brief because I, too, want the motion before the House passed and concurred in.
In working toward that end I would like to go back to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). I thought it was a useful question to place before the House. He asked the previous Minister of the Environment, the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia), why something had not been done sooner. Twin-tracking has not just started: there are already some 228 miles completed and another 538 miles to be completed. Why has something not been done sooner? Why are we now at the eleventh hour with an Order in Council about to be signed with last minute negotiations going on between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) and Indian leaders? Did no one sound the alarm?
I want to tell Hon. Members that someone did sound the alarm. In the previous Parliament I had the honour of chairing the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. There was a member of that standing committee who said to me on more than one occasion that this will be a very explosive issue and something should be done about it. He said that we must draw to the attention of the Government the concerns of Indian people and environmentalists on this issue. The Member to whom I am referring is the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway). He is now the Chairman of the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. He gave leadership in that Committee in bringing forward this third report which has been moved for concurrence by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) this afternoon. That Member gave what I consider to be courageous leadership. In his concerns for his constituency and this country I find him to be one of the outstanding Members of the House. He deserves a great deal of credit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: The simple answer to the question of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North is that committees are not listened to by governments. There are many reasons why the previous Government lost its mandate. I would say that one of those reasons is that that Government was not particularly good at listening to expressions of unanimity from standing and special committees. It played around with the recommendations and all too often responded in a facile fashion. If the Government had listened more frequently to what parliamentarians were saying about legitimate concerns in the country, it may have lasted a lot longer.
It may be strange for me as a Member of the Opposition now to be advising the new Government to listen to its committees. If it does it will be around for much longer than I would like to see it around. In most cases parliamentarians are in touch with the people. They meet in committees, receive testimony, analyse and debate it among themselves with freedom, concern and urgency, and then present a report to the House. If the Government responds we will have better government in the country than we had before.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Hon. Members are here but have not proven very much yet. It is a little early to be patting yourselves on the back. If you do, you may have to go to an Hon. Member for chiropractic treatment.
I do not know how many citizens watch the debates of the House of Commons on television after Question Period. People who are watching this debate ought to be aware that there is a painful process involved in decision-making. It has been said a number of times this afternoon that there are several issues involved in this debate rather than a single issue. As my hon. friend from Davenport said, there are very deep and conspicuous environmental concerns which cannot be ignored. There may well be a Railway-Indian Committee working. However, the issues are so wide and numerous that that committee will need a lot of time. The people representing the corporation will have to be very sensitive. They will have to be a lot more sensitive than the CN officials whom I have encountered in my experience as a Member of Parliament, who want to run through railway towns in northern Ontario without any concern for the impact on that community or the safety issues. There are environmental issues involved but there are other concerns as well.
The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) talked about the Fishery aspect of the environmental concerns. As the Member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Belsher) pointed out, the economic impact on British Columbia is important; that cannot be denied. I am not sure whether this qualifies as a megaproject, but it is big and there are jobs involved. At a time when unemployment is high that cannot be passed over lightly. The transportation issue is involved. We need to move our goods to and from the coast in a much more economic and efficient manner than we have so far.
There is another issue which is easily forgotten and passed over. That is the rights of the aboriginal people, the first
February 27, 1985

citizens of Canada. Those rights cannot just be glossed over quickly. We cannot try to convince the House that it will all be looked after. The Indian leaders who appeared before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on numerous occasions have too much bad history to relate to have any confidence in us. I will return to that point later if time will permit me.
Members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development joined members of the Fisheries Committee to hear the testimony. There are two committees involved in this. The Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development supports this motion. At the last meeting the Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) asked that this report be appended to our own minutes of proceedings and evidence. That was agreed to unanimously. There are two standing committees of the House of Commons that support this report.
No matter what kind of bureaucratic arguments we put on a piece of paper, Indian people are going to be affected. We can argue about how many reserves, how many bands or how many nations, but it does not matter. The alliance of the three nations involved have given very telling testimony about the impacts that they see upon them from this twin-tracking project. It is not that they want to stop it. They have said that these concerns are so vital that they need a little more time. From having spoken with their elders they know about the past grievances. They know that when the first railway track was built those grievances were never satisfactorily settled. We want to build a second track while we have outstanding grievances from the time the first track was built. In many cases the acquisition of rights of way proceeded in an irregular fashion without approval of the bands and without fair and adequate compensation.
Hydro-Quebec said that it had a big project in northern Quebec which could not be delayed because billions of dollars and jobs and the future of Canada was involved. The Cree of northern Quebec went to court and said that they were being run over by a roller and needed some time. They got a sympathetic Justice who said that he would impose an injunction on the project until there was a proper settlement. That led to the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. That could very well happen in this particular case. Mr. Speaker, if we do not pass this motion. If we do not arm the Ministers who are concerned-the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) are deeply concerned-with this motion to get such a moratorium, then perhaps the courts will do it for us.
The Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East in looking at the motion was concerned that it was too vague. He told us, for example, that the second paragraph which states that a twintracking project has social and environmental impacts on the 36 Indian bands was much too vague. Let us see how vague it is. Let us talk about the social and environmental impacts.
Fisheries and Forestry
This is a resume from the testimony received from the alliance of the tribal councils to which I referred earlier. These are just some of the land-related impacts. These land-related impacts are based on historical documents and on oral accounts that were passed on from the elders to the Indian leaders living today. Here are just a few of them:
Loss of fields, gardens, orchards, timber, irrigation flumes, and ditches due to the construction of the CNR. Desecration of graveyards, heritage sites, sacred sites and village sites by the CNR.
Let us elaborate on one, the desecration of graveyards. Supposing in the City of Toronto you want to build a spur line and it just happened to go through a graveyard. What do you suppose the CNR would do, Mr. Speaker? Can you just imagine what the CNR would do? Can you imagine the meetings with Metro Council and the Toronto City Council? Can you imagine the millions of dollars they would be prepared to spend? Can you imagine the public relations program they would introduce? It would be something to behold, Sir.
Here is how the CNR deals with Indian people. This is from a document dated 1913. The Department of Indian Affairs informed the CNPR, the Canadian National Pacific Railway, about the desecration of graveyards on the Ashcroft reserve. Let me read from the document. It states that the Chief of the Ashcroft Band reported that in consequence of extending the slope of the railway grade at their old graveyard at Ashcroft, a large number of bones of deceased Indians were exhumed and left exposed along the grave. This was reported to the engineer in charge who informed the Indians that he was not going to pay for the burying of any more Indian bones, that the Indians could take them away if they wanted to, but he would have nothing more to do with it. Apparently it was necessary to desecrate the old Indian burial ground. Under these circumstances it is thought that the remains should have been treated with common decency.
Something should be done or compensation should be made to satisfy the reasonable complaint of the Indians. The document goes on to state that cases of the above nature with railway companies have been allowed to drag along at great length, allowing a large amount of apparently useless correspondence. We read also: "I should be much obliged to you if you will cause each case to be gone into and settled as soon as conveniently possible."
In response, the CPR right-of-way agent informed the Department of Indian Affairs that this complaint has been settled with the Indians finally and, I believe, satisfactorily to them.
I can quite imagine with the second tracking that there will be witnesses from the Canadian National Railways appearing before one committee or another saying: "We had our meetings. We had our negotiations. We paid attention to all the concerns and they were all satisfactorily settled". Do not believe it for a moment, Mr. Speaker.
Here are some of the other impacts: the disruption of drainage patterns and flooding of farm land; fragmentation of limited reserve land base; discouragement and displacement of settlements adjacent to tracks. Some specific places are

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry
referred to. The list of impacts includes: quality of life disrupted due to noise, pollution, vibrations and dangerous crossings; loss of lives and livestock along rights of way; restrictions placed on the irrigation of reserve lands by CN Rail, allegedly because of wash-out problems; loss of traditional fishing stations.
You can see, Mr. Speaker, that this is going to take some time. If there is in fact an active CN committee, it will have a lot of work to do. Bureaucrats say: "Everything is okay; trust us. We will work it out. Don't worry; leave it in our hands". I tell you, worry, Mr. Speaker, worry. We have lots to worry about. We need time and that is why we have to support this motion. We need the time.


Mr. Thacker:: You are spawning Crown corporations faster than fish.


B. Keith Penner: The committee which the Hon. Member for Fraser Valley East spoke about needs the time. This motion must be concurred in.
I imagine there are quite a few Hon. Members who are gathering and want to speak. I think we should debate this issue at some length. I do not think that we should have to call it quits at six o'clock. We can go on for a while. We are all concerned about this issue. We are prepared to stay here, to debate it and to hear all the points of view. We do not want to cut the debate off and we do not want to introduce any closure.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider, pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(a), that we extend the hours and debate further this important motion to concur.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Mr. Penner moves, seconded by Mr. Caccia, to extend hours pursuant to Standing Order 8(4)(a).
In putting the question on such a motion, the Speaker shall ask those Members who object to rise in their places. If 25 or more Members rise, the motion shall be deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise the motion will have been adopted. All those who object to the motion please rise?
And more than 25 Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion lost. I declare the motion withdrawn and lost.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I have a question, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Gurbin) has the floor.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Taylor:: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Sorry. I regret that there are questions and comments after the Hon. Member's speech. Therefore, I will recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) on a question.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I see the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) is rising on a point of order.


Mr. Nickerson:: I distinctly heard you say, Mr. Speaker, that the motion had been lost. That is not my understanding of the event that took place. My understanding is that, pursuant to the Standing Orders, by virtue of the fact that more than 25 Members objected and rose to do so, the motion was deemed withdrawn. It was not lost.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is what I said. I corrected myself and said that it was withdrawn. Therefore the questions and comments are on the Hon. Member's speech and I recognize the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) for that purpose.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I should first like to make a short comment. Regardless of what the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) had to say, what needs to be made perfectly clear is that members of the NDP and Liberal Party were hoping to have a vote on this motion tonight.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. According to the rule I believe that the opportunity for questions and comments has to be relevant to the speech of the person who has just spoken, not comments which he might want to make about motions that have passed in the House or have been deemed withdrawn.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: On the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The point is well taken.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Could I just finish one, please?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Don't finish it until you have heard Hon. Members on it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member please let me finish? The point of the Hon. Member is well taken. The Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap has a question and comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), and I would like the House to direct itself accordingly.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). In terms of the excellent points which he was making and in terms of making a case as to why this motion should come to a vote today to stop the advance of the plans of CN in terms of environmental concerns, the concerns of native people and of the fishery, which were articulated, like so many other of his points, so extremely well, is my understanding of the result of the vote we have just had correct? The Conservatives voted unanimous-
February 27, 1985

ly in the House, with two exceptions. This means that this motion will not come to a vote and will die on the Order Paper at six o'clock. Am I correct that it was the Conservatives who made it impossible for us to continue this critical and important debate as it touches on environmental issues, native issues, fishery issues and economic issues generally?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


An Hon. Member:: What are you afraid of?


Paul Wyatt Dick: I am not afraid of anything, but I should like to tell the Hon. Member, if he does not realize it, that there was no vote taken. It was a matter of standing in our places; there was no question for the yeas-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is debate, not a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Tories voted against it; the CN flacks voted against it.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be pointed out that the matter does not die but goes back on the Order Paper and may be called again.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You have made your point. The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior wishes to answer the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, it occurred to me that if Canadians are watching parliamentarians at work, this is an issue to which they would want to pay close attention because it is not a simple issue. In fact, most decisions which are made are complex and have many aspects to them. It seemed to me that this was a good opportunity for all aspects to be expressed by Members who are concerned. Let them take only one aspect and say that it really bothers them. Let us hear more about the economic impact. We have not heard enough about that today. For goodness sake, why should such an important motion come, as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orli-kow) told us, at the eleventh hour, regretfully? Why should we stop at six o'clock and say that that is the end of it? Nothing has been given to the Government to arm it to raise its concerns with the railway and to respond legitimately to the testimony received by the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. This is why I thought it was important for us to go beyond six o'clock, to continue the debate and hear everything.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We can't now, is that right?


B. Keith Penner: We cannot now unless Hon. Members agree at three minutes to six that we will not say anything more and we will let the motion be concurred in. That would be the honourable thing to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: That is the way in which we could say to the Canadian people that the reform of Parliament is not some-
Fisheries and Forestry
thing which will come about when the committee on parliamentary reform has reported. We could say to them that parliamentary reform has begun in this House today because this Parliament is being responsive to one of its committees.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) who has served many years in the House. Does he remember even one occasion upon which his Government permitted such a motion to come to a vote? He is an experienced Member and knows that the committee has done a lot of good work. At the same time he knows that the dynamics of the committee are somewhat different from the dynamics of Cabinet which has to make the final decision on all sort of bases that the committee might not have considered. He knows that that process is ongoing.
What did his Government do in terms of ever letting such a motion come to a vote? What did he do and what did the Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) do when he was Minister of the Environment? It was their Government which spawned Crown corporations like fish.


B. Keith Penner: The Hon. Member is really flattering me way beyond anything I deserve because he is asking me to repeat the first part of my speech. What I am telling him and other Hon. Members is: for goodness sake, let us not get ourselves stuck in the past when Governments did not respond to the work of committees. The Party opposite went to the Canadian people and said that it was time for a change. Who can deny that we want to see changes? But where are these changes supposed to be? Are they supposed to be in some far off place? Why not let those changes begin here? The change we could adopt very easily is that we could begin to listen to standing committees, special committees and task forces of the House.
I am not happy with the past. I said to all Hon. Members of the House that if the previous Government had listened more to its Members, it might still be around governing. If this Government listens more to its committees, it might last a lot longer than I would like it to last. I will put all that aside because I think it is more important to the country, not who governs which political Party, to have good government. We cannot have good government unless we have parliamentarians working along with the Government to give us the best kind of legislation possible.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege. I just want to clarify something. There was a suggestion made by an Hon. Member on the other side-I am sure it was not with any malice-that all Conservatives had risen-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Except two, I said.


John Allen Fraser: Except two. I just want it recorded, for some reasons which-


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

February 27, 1985
Fisheries and Forestry


John Allen Fraser: It is not a speech, Mr. Speaker; it is a point of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is not a point of privilege if you are going to keep on talking the way you are right now. That is not privilege. Is the Hon. Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco) rising on a question or comment? He has exactly two minutes.


Robert Hylton Brisco: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest and appreciation to the concerns expressed by my colleague across the floor. I should like to put a question to him. There has been an examination of this matter by the standing committee. The debate today, by and large, on both sides of the House has been supportive of the concern which was brought before the House. We know that there are those Members on this side who understand and appreciate his concern and have addressed it. He is of the view that we are a Government with a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is not going to listen and not going to act on what was said, and with a Minister of Transport who will not act on what has been said today, as well as a Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who will not act on what has been said today. Is that his view? If that is not his view, then I ask the Hon. Member why he is so exercised over the fact that the matter is not coming to a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a great comment, but I would say that comments and questions are now terminated.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think that was a very worthy question and to be just left hanging in the air seems unfair. I would like unanimous consent to respond briefly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member have unanimous consent to respond briefly?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because it is myself that is being referred to, I want to make it clear that I indicated that the committee chairman and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did not support-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It is now debate.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this has been a very interesting afternoon. Up until an hour or so ago, I thought that we were having a level of debate in the House of Commons that I have not had the opportunity to enjoy on very many occasions. Beginning with the intervention of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) it rapidly deteriorated, and it has been deteriorating very quickly since that time.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Sorry I asked for action. I'm sorry it bothered you.


Gary Michael Gurbin: There are several major points. It is not a question of where Members' minds are at or what action they ask for. It is a question of honesty of action and whether or not they are consistent in their positions. That applies to Hon. Members on the other side as well as this side of the House. It flabbergasts me to sit here and listen to some of the interventions that can be made.
So many times I hear Members of the Official Opposition making comments to us that they would not appreciate from us and I hope we will never be guilty of perpetuating it the same way they did year after year after year.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You just have.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You have muzzled Parliament.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Here we go again with the NDP. If it were not for the mindless interventions of the NDP, such as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill, we would not have had the last five years of Liberal Government that ended up with this and so many other problems with which we have had to deal. They do not know where their head is at. They do not have to take the responsibility. They continue, even this afternoon, to refuse to look for ways to accomplish things. Instead-


Mr. Keeper:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member who is speaking said that it was only the NDP that were against this matter coming to a vote. He should know that two Members of his own Party-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is debate.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a lot of time left.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is your decision.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is unfortunate. Something happened this afternoon and it is getting worse all the time. Somebody asked a while ago what somebody watching television would think. If I had been watching TV, I would have turned it off. At this point in time one of the interesting things-even the NDP might be able to understand this if they will be quiet for a minute and think about it-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Aren't you wonderful, aren't you superb?


Gary Michael Gurbin: If they would take the time to read the motion that is before the House and see what it says and what has been accomplished through the interventions of the chairman of our committee-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why didn't you support him?


Gary Michael Gurbin: -and through the other people who have been discussing what the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-
February 27, 1985


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In terms of enforcing the rules of the House, I wonder if it might be possible for the Chair to consult the Hon. Member and ask him if he is merely talking this motion out in order to prevent the House from taking a vote?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I am only embarrassed to have to deal with these people, not embarrassed to be here. The point I was trying to make, if they would care to read the motion, is that even if the motion had sat there without being debated this afternoon, the committee, and I give full credit to the chairman in particular for this-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Why didn't you support him?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Here we go again. The committee has accomplished a very considerable end.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why did you betray your own committee?


Gary Michael Gurbin: The substance of the motion as it stands before us now refers to the advisability of the Government considering postponement. Those things have been in process ever since the committee brought the motion forward. They will continue on in spite of some of the things that have happened in between. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) who made an excellent intervention this afternoon, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) have lent their support to trying to seek as reasonable as possible a resolution to this matter.
There is something Hon. Members opposite should understand. They are hung up. One of the primary foci of the first intervention this afternoon was on the Order in Council. Yes, there is a legal obligation for the Minister of Transport to sign an Order in Council, but the Order in Council is only offering the opportunity for CN to do things. That is a legal obligation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is exactly what we are worried about.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That by itself does not result in the consequence of one piece of rock falling into one drop of water anywhere along that portion of land. I think, from what we heard from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, that there has to be, particularly because of this motion and the
Fisheries and Forestry
work of the committee, an honest effort on the part of the Government to resolve the situation that did occur, unfortunately and regrettably because of the lateness of the introduction of the EARP process as a result of difficulties that there have been historically. I am not going to waste any time or spend any time on that.


Cyril Keeper: Let's vote.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I have been on my feet now for maybe ten minutes, and for about five minutes of that I have been listening to catcalls from the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. We must see if the Hon. Member has a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I regret taking a moment of the Hon. Member's time, but I think this is important. It is two minutes before the hour, for those who are watching this debate or who read it later


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


Gary Michael Gurbin: In the final several minutes that I have left, if anybody is watching now and doing anything but laughing at the NDP and the Liberals, I would like to-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the NDP did not waste so much time, we could have voted today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, in the final moment I have left, I want to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe the Hon. Member for Skeena has a point of order, or are you just fooling around with the Chair?


James Ross Fulton: No, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would hope not. In any event, I regret to say that I cannot hear a point of order because it is now six o'clock.
It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 28, 1985