1985-03-11

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to speak on Bill C-32. I am pleased for a number of reasons. This Bill gives us an opportunity to address some outstanding issues in the fishing community, both on the east coast of Canada and, in particular, on the west coast of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the Hon. Member for just one second. 1 would like to ask a simple question. I understood when we interrupted this debate on Friday that the Hon. Member wanted to rise and ask questions at that point. Is the Hon. Member now asking questions or is he resuming debate?
Just for the formality, may I see if there are any Members who wish to ask questions in the question time remaining. There being no such questions, we will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I would have been delighted to ask questions today but the Hon. Member who spoke last is not in the House.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: The Hon. Member is not supposed to refer to that fact.


Brian Vincent Tobin: 1 do not think it would be proper, given such an excellent first effort by this Member, who is sincere in his concern about the fishery, to question him seeing that he is not here. I am sure the Hon. Government House Leader would agree that is a very proper attitude for a Member from Newfoundland to take.
As I said, 1 am pleased to have an opportunity to address this Bill. I do not think there is anyone in this House of Commons who does not support a request by the Minister to clarify his powers with respect to his ability to allocate fish, be
it on the west coast or on the east coast of Canada. I think all of us recognize that, given the court cases that have occurred and the fact that the Minister's powers are very fuzzy at this time, there is a need for him to be certain what his powers are with respect to the allocation of fish.
That is not the problem, Mr. Speaker. We support the thrust of the Bill. What Members do not support is the notion that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) should have the right to allocate fish unimpeded by any body, by any court, by any user group, without first telling Members of this House and, more important, telling the user groups on the west coast and on the east coast what the guidelines and parameters should be respecting the allocation of fish.
On the west coast of Canada, Mr. Speaker, you would appreciate the tremendous value of the salmon fishery worth many hundreds of millions of dollars, some estimate as much as a billion dollars, and you would know there are conflicts between various user groups, between native and non-native fishermen, between commercial and sports fishermen-


Ms. Mitchell:: Fish people.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) reminds me I should say fish people-and between fish people of whatever sex.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: These conflicts are real and the bottom line is that they affect people's ability to make a living. They affect their livelihood, their ability to put bread and butter on the table and their ability to protect, in many cases sometimes, decades of investment by way of gear and vessels and the most modern technology the industry can offer at this time. We have a Minister asking us for approval to clarify his role and his powers to allocate fish without first telling us what the parameters and the guidelines should be with respect to the conflicts between the various user groups. That simply is not acceptable, Sir. We must have a clear statement from the Minister before this House can give approval to a Bill knowing what the consequences of giving the Minister that authority will be.
In my own Province of Newfoundland, there are a number of outstanding issues. I represent a riding, if Members of the New Democratic Party are interested-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Brian Vincent Tobin: -on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland. It is a riding with 500 miles of coastline consisting of
90,000	souls and several hundred communities. In over 50 per

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
cent of those communities people live in small villages or towns with populations of under 1,000. 1 know Members will appreciate that in that kind of environment, the fishery, the health of the fishery, the sensitivity of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, his knowledge and his commitment to the fishery, is critical. It is the difference between having a life of dignity, a life which, if not prosperous, is at least decent, and having no life at all.
The people along that 500 miles of coastline have been trying to organize a meeting with the Minister of Fisheries and his officials in a community called St. Anthony which is located on the tip of the great northern peninsula right on the edge of the Cabot Strait. They pulled together every development association, every fisheries committee and every economic development group along that coastline to have a meeting with the Minister to discuss the establishment of a northern fisheries development corporation. The meeting was scheduled for the end of last month but the Minister, being a busy man and despite the many weeks of preparation, could not attend. Thus the problems and aspirations of the people living on that rocky coastline of the great northern peninsula were put on the shelf. Being the decent people that they are, they did not complain; they simply came back and asked the Minister whether they could schedule another date.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I am sad to say, as busy as he is, responded last week in the House of Commons by indicating that he could not commit himself to any such meeting or to being in St. Anthony-the outer perimeter of the world, it sounded like to me-but that he would be glad to send some officials. When 30,000 souls along 200 miles of coastline take the trouble for weeks to organize a meeting about the very lifeblood which puts bread and butter on their table, they do not want to meet some official. They know the buck stops with the Minister of Fisheries. They know, because I have told them even though I sit on this side of the House, that the Minister of Fisheries is a good and decent man, if one can simply get his ear. He wants to be an effective Minister of Fisheries. However, they do not know that the Minister has his hands tied by a Minister of Finance who has already slashed in November $31 million from the fisheries budget, by a Minister of Finance who cancelled the $15 million which had been allocated to negotiations between the Province of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada for the establishment of a northern fisheries development corporation on the great northern peninsula.
Hon. Members are probably wondering why we need this northern fisheries development corporation. It is because on the northern peninsula, north of the fiftieth parallel, from the community of Port au Choix all along the peninsula to the Labrador coast and on to the Quebec north shore, historically fishermen and fish plants, as humble as they are, have been nothing but a feeder plant, exporters of raw material. Fishermen bring in some of the best product in the world from some of the richest fishing grounds in the world to a small fish plant. The fish is simply cut, put on ice, loaded on a truck and
exported to Boston. There the product is finished, filleted, packaged and frozen, and it comes back not only to Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but to the great northern peninsula as a finished product.
The people on that coast realize that there is something wrong. When they export raw fish, they are not only exporting that product but they are exporting jobs which could and should exist on the great northern peninsula. Each small feeder plant is part of the chain of either a national or international fishing conglomerate. Even though the majority of fish is landed on that coastline in the north, it suits the objectives of multinationals to ship it raw off the northern peninsula and south of the border for packaging.
Fishermen have the raw product and the determination. Given the assistance, the time and the attention of the Minister and of both Governments, they would have the ability within their grasp to take hold of their destiny, to fasten their own sail, to be masters in their own house and to be captain of their own ship. Jobs could be created where they should be, on the great northern peninsula, but that will take our help. If we are going to help, we have to listen. They cannot come to Ottawa. The Minister has to take the time; he has to see it as a high enough priority to go to the great northern peninsula and give these people the fair hearing that they deserve.
There is another matter that upsets me greatly. In the November 8 financial statement by the Minister of Finance the Minister announced that in future berthage fees will be charged to fishermen right across this country. A fisherman who ties up to a public wharf will have to pay a parking fee.
We have the spectacle of this Government having practically put a freeze on small craft harbours funding right across this country, an end to upgrading, maintaining and building new facilities for fishermen on the one hand. On the other hand we have the announcement that fishermen will have to pay to tie up to a wharf. There is a disparity in facilities not only across the regions of this country-some regions have fairly good facilities, some have hardly any-but the disparity within the regions is such that no fair and just berthage fee can be charged to fishermen.
When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, I had the pleasure of travelling to the great west coast of Canada. At a public wharf, I saw boats lined up 10, 12 and 15 deep. Who will pay the berthage fee? Will it be the fisherman who actually gets to tie up to the wharf who will pay the fee? Will the fellow 15 boats out have to pay when he is not sheltered and protected? According to this regulation, they will all pay.
On the northern peninsula of Newfoundland there is a wharf in the community of Anchor Point where $25 million in fish is landed and taxes are paid. The wharf is falling into the water. Will those fishermen have to pay a berthage fee to tie up to that dilapidated structure? I do not think so. This Government should first establish a basic level of service, a basic quality or standard of harbour facility before deciding to
March 11, 1985

charge fishermen to tie up to facilities which in many cases, if they exist at all, are poor.
Members who were here during the last Parliament will recall the many hours of debate on the bail-out of Fisheries Products International in the Province of Nova Scotia and in the Province of Newfoundland. Some $200 million of government funds was injected to save Nickerson's, National Seed, The Lake Group and Fisheries Products. A new company was formed, Fisheries Products International.
During the time of that debate, the position taken by the Party opposite and by the like-minded Premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Brian Peckford, who Members opposite will say is a good Conservative, was that no fish plant that was owned by the new conglomerate, Fisheries Products International, could close. Every job had to be saved in every single community. At the time I thought that was a bit ambitious. In fact, I knew it was.
I am bothered now by statements of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) that Fisheries Products International is for sale. Having injected $200 million of taxpayers' money into that company, having revived the company, having put the company back in operation and beginning the process of making it productive, it will be passed over for a song to private enterprise. They are going to take it back as well as the taxpayers' $200 million. More than that, we are now being told by the federal Government and the Government of Newfoundland that the non-productive plants of Fisheries Products International, and there are several dozen, can be closed. Those communities can be consigned to the dustbin of history. The productive plants, those that are showing a profit when it is sold, will be kept open. I would use an unparliamentary word, Mr. Speaker, but you would simply interrupt my line of thought. Exhibiting concern before September 4 and being brutal immediately afterward is not worthy of the members of the Government.
There are communities both in Nova Scotia and Newfoundland that have been fishing communities for 500 years. There are isolated communities and small towns that have only become accessible by road in the last 15 years though it still takes a drive of a day or two to get to them. There are small towns in which the culture and the way of life have revolved around the fishery. These communities are now being told by the Government, without its offering any alternative suggestion as to how they may provide for themselves otherwise, that their history has been long and colourful but they are about to be consigned to the next chapter of the book on ghost towns in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will have to address all of these questions before he finds that members of my Party are prepared to give him the ultimate power to assign quotas for the fish that is available to fishermen and fishing companies.
Let me say in closing that I know the Minister of Fisheries. I have had the pleasure of working with him for the last five years. I know him to be a decent man, a caring man and a
Fisheries Act
sensitive man. However, I know as well that he is a member of a Cabinet that will slash the fishery with no forethought of the consequences in human terms and in terms of isolated communities which have no other options.
On behalf of the Minister and the people I represent, I beg the Minister's Cabinet colleagues to listen to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because he understands. Because I know the Minister understands and cares, I say to him that if his colleagues will not listen and if the kind of brutal "bull-in-a-china-shop" approach that has been taken so far continues, I would ask the Minister to find the courage and integrity required to do the right thing. He knows that that right thing is to stand up on behalf of his first constituency as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to expose the brutal approach to fishermen, their families and their communities that has been taken so far in the brief six months in which this Government has been in power.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


Mr. Baker:: Mr. Speaker, I must congratulate the Hon. Member on his speech. I would like to ask him a question. The Minister of Fisheries for the Province of Newfoundland has stated publicly that the Government of Newfoundland has made representations to the federal Government about the province's concerns over the federal Government's announcement that it will be terminating the federal fishing vessel insurance program. The union in Newfoundland is also objecting to the termination of this insurance scheme. As of yesterday, the Government of Newfoundland has publicly opposed the cancellation of this scheme.
The provincial Minister of Fisheries has given a public indication that the federal Government is now rethinking this cancellation. He also claims that the federal Government will support the seal hunters and that the federal Government will do this, that and the other thing. I am wondering whether or not the Hon. Member could comment on those items.


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is wonderful what the eminent call of a provincial election will do to wake up the provincial fisheries Minister to the problems which fishermen face in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. My fellow colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), may or may not know this, but the Premier of Newfoundland has reserved prime time on television and radio tonight. He is going to call an election. Lo and behold, his Ministers in each portfolio, and in particular the Minister of Fisheries, have discovered their clientele, and that all is not rosy and well with Ottawa.
I would say to the Hon. Member opposite that we have not heard a sound from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans about the $36 million in cut-backs which were announced on November 8 by the Minister of Finance. We have not heard about the introduction of berthage fees, or the cancellation of the vessel subsidy program. Nor have we heard a sound from the Province of Newfoundland about its long-standing state-

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
ment that northern cod should only be used for the benefit of Newfoundland and no one else. As a Canadian and a Newfoundlander, that is a position with which I disagree. It has gone by the wayside.
If the politicking between federal and provincial Government was not so obvious, it would be hilarious. Unfortunately, the consequences of that kind of cynical view with respect to fisheries development and management is brutal, not for the politicians who sit in the House, but for the fishermen who live in small communities on the great northern peninsula such as Bear Cove, Anchor Point, Flower's Cove or Cooks Harbour. It is brutal to those fishermen and their families. It is not a laughing matter, it is rather sad.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting things which I did not hear the previous speaker elaborate on was how the Liberal Party destroyed the fisheries in Canada. For years and years tremendous opportunities on the west coast laid fallow. I know that the Hon. Member touched on the incompetence of this Government. I wonder if he would care to speak to many of the former Liberal Ministers of Fisheries who did nothing constructive with respect to the West Coast fishery?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting that fellows who go to hockey games, sit up in the stands and who have never had a hockey stick in their hands claim to be the biggest experts. We all know the NDP has never formed a government, and will never form a government, so its members are armchair experts in every field of endeavour.
Let me speak about the province which I know best. The reality is, in those districts where the fishing constituency is predominant, Newfoundlanders returned to the House of Commons the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), and myself, the Hon. Member for Humb-er-Port au Port-St. Barbe, despite the best predictions of the pundits. Let me say, in all humility, that I have great respect for the opinions and the decisions of the fishermen of Newfoundland. They decided to send three of us back to the House of Commons in the last election. When the NDP next has the opportunity to hold the hockey stick, its members may then make comments. He who has clean hands has no hands, and I guess the hands of the NDP will stay clean for a long time.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short comment. I feel certain New Democratic Members will agree that never before in the history of the Government of Canada have we seen so many cuts in such a short period of time as we have recently seen in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Never before in the history of the Government of Canada have we seen as many cuts in every federal Department as we have seen in the last few months. There is no comparison-and one could go back to Sir John A. Macdonald-between any former Government and this present Government. It is unfortunate that the New Democratic Party at times is so preoccupied with trying to criticize former Governments that it sometimes loses sight of what is happening today in Canada, and that is what we are dealing with. I would hope that that Party would take
aim at the real issues which face this nation and which have been created by this present Government.


Mr. Hopkins:: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to follow up on what my hon. colleague has just stated. We have all seen the recent love affair carried on out west with the First Ministers' conference. My hon. friend from Newfoundland has really laid it on the line about the qualities of the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). I would ask the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who spoke on this issue if he and the people of Newfoundland do not agree that although the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans might have all of those qualities which were mentioned, he has very little clout in Cabinet and has no influence against this "cut, cut, cut" committee which has been working within the Tory Cabinet? Would the Hon. Member not agree that because the Newfoundland Government has gone along with the love affair we have seen in western Canada, it is in no position now to go back to its own people and say that it fought for the people of Newfoundland? Indeed, it is my two colleagues from Newfoundland who are the ones standing up in this House and defending the rights, privileges and livelihoods of the fishermen in Newfoundland.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member very much for his question. I have one brief comment to make to my colleagues from the New Democratic Party who now profess a sudden interest in the fishery. I noticed with great interest the fact that during the entire summer election campaign, neither the Leader of the New Democratic Party nor any other Hon. Member of that Party visited the Province of Newfoundland even once. Obviously they did not deem it important enough. They did not know enough about the province and they thought it was so insignificant and irrelevant that they didn't even bother to come and visit the province.
Our Leader got elected on the west coast. That Party's Leader did not even take the time to visit the Province of Newfoundland even once during an entire summer election campaign. There can be no more of a stinging indictment than that the New Democratic Party is more interested in holding up the proverbial carrot, promising everything to everybody, rather than taking a serious, mature and realistic approach to problems besetting individuals across this country today.
With respect to his question, I would like to tell my hon. colleague that I believe, as I said earlier, that this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is a well-intentioned fellow. He is basically a good man. But I feel he is surrounded by Ministers such as the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) who have no knowledge of and, indeed, no sensitivity to the importance of the fishery to both the east coast and the west coast and are prepared to act with a hatchet in dealing with the fishermen on both those coasts. I hope that this Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will emerge as a strong Minister who has clout. I know he has more brains than all of the rest of the Cabinet put together.
March 11, 1985

What I do not know is whether the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has the common sense to recognize that fact. So far he has not. So far the Government has scuttled that Minister and held him up to derision in front of the fishermen of Canada. This Minister is taking flak he does not deserve. He is being blamed for program cuts which he did not initiate. We on this side of the House are trying to help this Minister do his job and be a good Minister, and if Hon. Members opposite cared and would listen, they would get behind this Minister and give him a hand because, basically, he is a good man. But that Minister is in with a crowd of people who belong on the saddle of a robber's horse.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, after the Hon. Member's last statement I feel a little winded, to say the least. There is a lot of hot air flowing around this Chamber.
In speaking to Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act,
I want to express the concern which I believe other Hon. Members have expressed that it really is unfortunate that the Minister in this case has made a decision to again centralize the power of the fisheries in his office and in the bureaucracy which in the past have not had a great deal of credibility with the people who are doing the fishing and with the industry as a whole. He has taken it upon himself, without consultation with the people who are directly concerned, to allocate the fish supply.
The intent of the Bill, as I understand it, is to expand the authority of the Minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and in particular to expand the proper management, allocation and control of the sea coast fisheries of Canada. In our view, the Bill gives far too much power to the Minister to allocate the fishery resource. It would seem that this will be controlled largely by the Minister and his staff and undoubtedly would lead to an increase in the bureaucracy which has been far too insensitive, at least at the central level, to the needs of the west coast fisheries in particular. This Bill expands the role of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans personnel and gives them greater authority.
Something I noticed in the Bill which I expect we will agree with is the intent to redefine the term "fish" to include plants. I would hope here that the intent is to expand into various types of fish farming and the farming of sea plants which we know have considerable nutritional value and perhaps export value as well.
The previous speaker remarked on the terminology of the Bill. In preparing for my remarks this morning I found myself once again struggling with the terminology of "fishermen" in view of our charter and wondering what would be a better term. Perhaps we should have a redefinition of that term in this Bill. I considered "fish people", which sounds a little silly, and "fish folk", which sounds a little folksy, but concluded that perhaps we should be using the word "fishers" as a generic term for workers in this industry.
West coast fishers on the whole are a very large community. In the past it has been a very large industry. I would like to
Fisheries Act
give you, Mr. Speaker, a few statistics. The average wholesale value of the Pacific and Yukon fishery management resource between 1979 and 1983 was $45 million. There are some
17,000	commercial fishers and 350,000 to 400,000 recreational fishers. In addition to that, of course, there are many native communities whose main means of survival and potential for economic development is fishing. There are five species of salmon which constitutes the most valuable catch on the west coast. This makes up about 64 per cent of the value of the industry.
The herring and herring roe fishery is a particularly large industry in British Columbia. We are the prime suppliers to the Japanese market and, of course, we have concern about what is happening to our herring fisheries as well as a concern for the salmon fishery. There are many people who work in related industries as well. In my riding of Vancouver East there are many immigrant and native women who get up very early in the morning, while it is still dark, in order to get down to the port to work in the fish canneries and fish freezing industries. Those industries are big job suppliers in my riding and in many others. Potentially, therefore, we have a very strong fishing industry in the Province of British Columbia and potentially it is a self-sufficient industry. It is very important as a renewable resource, but we must take the steps which are needed and which have been so long delayed to have an adequate renewal program.
We know that in recent years there has been a very worrisome shortage of fish on the west coast. This indicates the very urgent need for a proper salmon enhancement program, adequate planning, and the development of new and related industries. I recently saw a very impressive program on TV showing the experiments going on in oyster farming off the northern coast. As the fisher people will tell us, there is a lot that can be done in catching, processing and exporting fish that Canadians do not eat but which other countries, particularly Asian countries, would be very pleased to get in greater numbers, dogfish and hake being two of them. Seaweed and other forms of sea plants are other areas that can and should be developed for a variety of purposes.
There has been an increasing rivalry, given a limited supply of fish on the west coast, between the various user groups seeking the resource. The reduction in available fish has been complicated and perhaps even affected by poor management in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I think most people on the west coast who are close to this industry would agree that the lack of adequate planning and consultation with the various groups involved has been a major problem.
My colleague challenged the Liberal Member to look back at the record of the Liberal Government. There is no question at all that the various experts the Liberals used came in with plans and the bureaucracy and the Minister himself just seemed to take their word without consultation with the user groups, and that added greatly to our problems. We had hoped this Minister would be different. As was pointed out, he is

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
from the west coast, he is sensitive and I think tries very hard for a just approach in most matters. In view of that, we are very disappointed in this Bill.
I would like to point out that any planning for the fisheries industry must consider human resources as well as the fish resources. The native communities up and down our coast have survived for hundreds or even thousands of years on fish supply. It is the main source of jobs for commercial fishermen and they are very worried. Many of them invested a great deal of money in very expensive vessels and it is critical that they obtain a certain amount of take each year. It is not just the individual fisher people who are affected, it is also their communities. We predict that if these kinds of cut-backs continue along the west coast, many coastal villages will almost disappear. Of course, this affects mothers and children, indeed all the people living in those communities.
We have found that the Liberals were inclined to be very biased toward the sports fishermen. Indeed, this is a big industry. I would not put it at the top of the list myself, but I do know that there is considerable room for expansion if we have more fish so that it is not taking jobs away from commercial fishers and food out of the mouths of native communities.
What is the present Government doing? This Bill was laid on us just as the salmon treaty with the United States was agreed on. There was no consultation with the people who are going to be directly affected and this is very difficult to understand. This Government has talked over and over again about consultation. The Minister himself should certainly be sensitive to this need. The Conservatives promised fair representation and co-operative management in consultation, but where is the consultation? Has there been fair representation in the process involved in presenting this Bill? Once again the Minister did not consult before presenting his plan. He has not gone to the groups most affected despite having promised a more open department. I think there is a considerable concern that again the bureaucrats will be in charge. While we know there are many fine workers in the Public Service, the central bureaucrats have tended to lay some pretty heavy trips on some west coast people and have not been sensitive to their views and needs. So we must ask the Minister to reconsider this and go back to a process which will involve people.
I am not an expert in this field, Mr. Speaker, but the creation of some form of independent board removed from the political sphere seems to make a great deal of sense to me. This was proposed by a lot of people concerned; indeed it was part of the Conservatives' election campaign promises. The board would be outside of political influence entirely and independent of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Such a board should consist of members of user groups such as the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union in British Columbia. It should include native representatives such as the Native Brotherhood, sports fishers and all those who have a particular interest in this industry, including management. The board should examine the Atlantic and Pacific fisheries stock and determine the size and quality. It should establish a
recommended level of expected return and escapement and the catch levels. It should set quotas and make recommendations on allocations to the Minister. This would take the responsibility away from the Minister and his Department and place it in the hands of the industry.
About a week ago we had a job task force meeting in Vancouver and representatives of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union made a presentation: They said:
The fishing industry in British Columbia is not now nor has it ever been a welfare state for the people who produce its wealth. With our rich salmon resources, the industry has been able to stand on its own two feet although it has experienced its booms and busts. The potential for the industry is being smothered by the bureaucracy and government indifference. Incredible as it may seem, the Department of Fisheries & Oceans is staffed by some 6,000 people nation-wide, when our fishing industries from coast to coast, produce a landed value comparable to a country like Norway (pop. 4.14 million).
Administration of the Pacific fisheries must be de-politicized. The Pacific Fisheries Development Board needs to be created, properly and adequately funded, to develop our fisheries to their fullest potential. The Board's authority would be:
1.	) Arrange loans at reasonable rates of interest to fishermen to finance vessels and gear.
2.	) Selectively reduce the fishing fleets that have an over-capacity for fishing and/or are over-capitalized. Fleet reductions must be voluntary and accomplished by attrition.
3.	) A comprehensive and scientific salmonid enhancement program to concentrate on the enhancement of wild stocks.
4. ) Conduct research with particular reference to coastal and high seas interceptions of salmon. Canada must lay claim to salmon spawned in its streams and rivers and assert ownership over our valuable and fragile salmon resources.
5.	) Develop fisheries and markets for under-utilized or non-utilized species like dogfish and hake.
6.	) Protection of fisheries habitat particularly that for salmon.
These are some of the measures that would be taken to ensure that the fishing industry remains a vibrant and viable part of British Columbia's economy and to ensure that sound management and development policies are being practised for the benefit of the owners of our Pacific fisheries resources- the Canadian people as a whole. I do not understand why there is nothing in the Bill that recommends the establishment of such an interdisciplinary board which would be independent from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
There are certain very important principles to the fishing industry that are being threatened by the amendments in this Bill. First, we believe that all users of the resource, including native, commercial and sports fishers, have the right to share in the resource and therefore be involved in the planning and decision-making relating to this resource.
Second, commercial fishers have a right to a fair and decent income for their labour. It is particularly important that they have enough catch and income each year to help pay off their considerable debts for the very expensive vessels that are required in today's fishing industry.
Third, natives have special traditional rights to the resource and to its use in furthering the economic development of their communities. This resource is not only important as a source of food for native people; it is important to their potential
March 11, 1985

development of economic resources in which they may do their own processing as well.
Fourth, while there is potential to develop the sports fishing industry, we hope that it is secondary to the priority of the other two fishing bodies.
Fifth, the protection and enhancement of the resource is paramount and must take priority in all deliberations.
We realize that there are many studies and proposals that have been made which indicate the need for action in this area. Most important is the question of consultation and the reestablishment of some kind of credibility between the Government of Canada and the people on the west coast who both manage and work in this industry.
The allocation of the resource between the various sectors of the industry must be negotiated and developed with the full co-operation and involvement of the industry. Allocation and who controls it is the key to an acceptable plan for fleet rationalization, income stability and resource conservation. Before allocation to the commercial fleet can be even considered, it is necessary to make a commitment to the continued existence of the fleet.
That fleet is very much threatened under the present circumstance. There are fishers who have spent much of last year collecting unemployment insurance. They do not want to be continually dependent on that for their existence. The present circumstances have left many commercial fishers unsure of either their personal future or the future of the fleet as a whole. There is a fear, particularly among smaller independents, that they will be pushed out of the industry. Many of them have already been pushed out of the industry.
There should be a guarantee that fishers, regardless of the type of gear, will have equitable access to the resource in order to maintain a decent income. Emphasis should be placed on the need for consultation and representation on any decisions affecting the industry. The expansion of the powers of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans without sufficient guidelines or curbs, as is being proposed in this Bill, is a common fear among the user groups. I hope that the Minister will meet with the people affected by this legislation and reconsider this Bill, which we and the people affected by it do not like.


Mr. Hovdebo:: Mr. Speaker, there are many concerns about the fishery because the previous Government left it in great difficulty. It did very little for that industry over many years. Furthermore, the bureaucracy under the previous Government was insensitive and unwilling to address the problems facing that industry. The Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said that this board might be a better solution to the problem. She outlined some of the duties of that board, but would she expand further to indicate what powers that board should have in order to increase control over the industry?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that I am not an expert in this field. However, I am very concerned about the situation because of its effect on people in my riding,
Fisheries Act
in communities not only in British Columbia but on the east coast, and on those involved in the inland fisheries as well.
I understand that the function of the board would be somewhat different from that of a marketing board. My colleague and I attended a job task force hearing in Saskatoon. It was asked why there could not be a marketing board for the fisheries. It is my understanding that a marketing board would not be necessary because there is no problem with marketing the fish, particularly in our area. The problem is that there is not enough of the resource; it is dwindling and the management of the resource is ineffective.
The most important function of the board would be planning and renewal. Of course, that involves some allocation of the resource but, as I understand it, the problem has been that governments have concentrated too much on limiting the resource without trying to increase it. This is the complaint that I have heard very often. For example, commercial fishermen are not opposed to limiting their catch to a reasonable and fair amount but only want to do so in the knowledge that the resource is being improved and expanded. That would be one of the very important functions of this body. I suggest that the board would be interested in what is taking place in research while keeping close ties with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in that regard.
I understand that one of the most important aspects of this board would be to bring together all the groups in order to achieve a compromise as a result of conflicting and competing interests due to the shortage of the resource. For example, seiners and gillnetters who have different methods of fishing and are sometimes in competition would have to sit down at the table to negotiate, as would commercial fishers and sports fishers. They would also have to recognize that native people have traditional rights which must be maintained. There would have to be compromise in determining the management and planning of this resource.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) is our critic with respect to women's issues. One of the interesting aspects of this industry concerns the shore processing plants. It is very difficult for women who work seasonally and part time in those plants to earn a decent living. Would the Hon. Member outline some of the dilemmas that women face in this particular job ghetto area with parttime work, problems with unemployment insurance and, of course, the difficult question of secondary job area confinement?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I hope Members of the House are aware of several cases, about two years ago, which went before the Unemployment Insurance Commission. These were concerns of women, equal partners in many cases, who go to sea in boats in very cold weather and carry an equal load in the job of fishing. They were treated as spouses or partners but were not treated equally with regard to paying into unemployment insurance. There was quite a protest. I believe that issue has now been resolved. Perhaps it is one on which we should

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
get an update to see how women feel about it at the present time.
I would suspect, just like family farming which involves women in several roles, that women in the fishing industry are the traditional homemakers and have responsibility for raising families. Women on farms work in the fields, particularly at harvest time, with their husbands and other farm workers. Most recently in the agricultural field, and I think the same could be said of the fisheries, they are having to take on extra jobs because there simply is not enough income. They are involved in full-time jobs quite often as well. This puts a triple workload on women. I hope the gentlemen in this House will realize that. This situation applies particularly to women in many resource areas.
I think my colleague is leading up to the question of part-time work as it affects women, because so often they are regarded as the secondary worker in a family. They are forced into part-time jobs, part-time jobs that do not have adequate benefits, that are not covered under the Labour Code. They should be covered under the Labour Code for pro-rated benefits. That is why we are pushing so hard for this provision for part-time workers, 73 per cent of whom are women. They are often the last hired and the first fired when there is a stress on jobs or when jobs are tight. I am sure this situation occurs in the fishery industry as well.
In my riding, as I mentioned, there are many women working in the fish plants. I have toured those plants. Those jobs are not very enviable in many ways. Quite often immigrant women are the ones who do these jobs. They do not speak very much English and often it is the only type of job they can get. It is important that they have decent pay, decently protected working conditions and job security.
In this industry the only way men and women and families can have job security is if the Government takes some positive steps to do more planning for renewal of stocks so we have more fish to fish and more fish to can and freeze. There will then be more opportunity for jobs in the processing of this particular resource.


Mr. Crofton:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment. I have been listening with some interest to the speeches this morning. The speaker for the New Democratic Party suggested that there is no consultation going on. It could be construed as a big lie; if you say something often enough, it takes on a life of its own. Certainly in the fishing industry there has been conversation going on for years, any amount of it, but what has been lacking is action. Finally we have a Government and a Ministry that are prepared to take some action. The consultative process is in place. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) has advisory boards in place. Consultation will continue.
Concerning management of the fishery, let me speak about the herring roe industry where the fishing season is counted in hours, not in weeks or months. It is essential that Ministry officials have the opportunity to make decisions quickly.
There was conversation this morning about docks falling down in Newfoundland and in places elsewhere. There are a great many things that still need to be attended to in the operation of the fishery. The particular legislation before us is to give the Minister the opportunity to manage and to make decisions about allocation. That is a shortcoming in the present legislation. This is not meant to be a panacea for all the problems in the fishing industry. It is to address a particular aspect of it. It is long overdue and it is essential.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments is now terminated. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will resume debate.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to hear the comments made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell), whose riding is next door to mine. I would like to start in French, because this Bill is of particular interest to the people of Quebec and to French-speaking Canadians on the West Coast who are affected by this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, in Clause 1 of the Bill, an addition is made to the definition of the term "fish". For instance, Clause 1.(1 )(a) provides, and I quote:
(a)	portions of fish,
(b)	... marine plants and portions thereof,
(c)	. .. shellfish, crustaceans and marine animals,
I see no problem with the definition and this addition.
In Clause 1.(2) the definition of "fishery" is also changed, and I quote:
"fishery" includes
(a)	the places in Canadian fisheries waters where, and the times when, fishing and related activities occur, including such packing, transporting and processing operations as are within the jurisdiction of Parliament, and
(b)	the persons engaged and the fishing vessels, fishing gear and other equipment used in the activities referred to in paragraph (a);"
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with this definition, but there is a problem with "purposes" in Clause 2, and I quote:
2.1 The purposes of this Act are-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Might I remind the Hon. Member that the debate on second reading is to be on the principle of the Bill and not on specific clauses as the Hon. Member seems to be doing.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I understand, Mr. Speaker. But the problem
with this Bill's principle may be found in this passage, and more specifically, in Clause 2.1(b), and I quote:
(b) to provide for the proper management, allocation and control of the seacoast fisheries of Canada;
I have a problem with the word "allocation". The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) can only provide management for conservation, not for allocation.
*
March 11, 1985

There are many groups, including sports fishermen, commercial fishermen, Indians, etc. There may be as many as four or five different groups of fishermen, and that is the problem with this Bill. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) said recently that the Bill is the result of two court cases on which I would like to comment for a moment.
As I said, the problem is with the addition of allocation. It gives power to the Minister to allocate. It is to this that groups especialy on the Pacific coast object. There are a number of groups. For example, there are sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and the Indian fisheries. Within the different groups, say commercial fishermen, there are seiners, gillnetters and others. As long as the Minister had power to manage the fisheries for conservation purposes, it was accepted by the groups. However, a year or so ago the Minister was involved in two court cases as a result of the problem of allocating. In fact, in those court cases the Minister said that he would step in and say that sports fishermen could fish instead of commercial fishermen, or seiners instead of gillnetters. That was like putting the cat among the pigeons. There were complaints and two court cases.
I should like to comment on the court cases. The documents of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans indicate that the current Act is deficient in that it does not clearly give powers to the Minister to manage the fishery for economic and social purposes.

That was in the other passage, Mr. Speaker, in Clause 2.1, under "purposes", and I quote:
(c)	to ensure a continuing supply of fish and to maintain and develop the
economic and social benefits from the use of fish to fishermen-
The words "economic and social benefits"-

Economic and social concerns are new to the Act. We are adding to the main principle of the Act. My colleagues are saying that this is not mere housekeeping legislation. Once the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is given the power to allocate stocks for economic and social reasons, we open up a can of worms, or perhaps a can of sardines in this particular case. It goes beyond the powers the Minister had before and it has ramifications. All user groups or fisher groups on the west coast raised some concerns.
The last Hon. Member who spoke indicated that there had been lots of consultation and that we should get on with action. I am a man of action. I like that approach. I respect the Minister of Fisheries who represents the next riding to mine. I have respected and know him for many years. He is a man of action. But we must remember that this is a bureaucracy with
6,000	people in it. As one of the fishermen said, if we could produce as much fish as we produce bureaucrats in the Department of Fisheries, we would be the leading nation in the world in fisheries. We have to be careful about the power we are giving the bureaucracy. The thrust of NDP speeches is that we want the Minister to give us a commitment to add to the
Fisheries Act
Bill or provide some other way for it to be done. Perhaps it could be discussed in committee. We want a consultative process to be written in so that the Minister cannot unilaterally or arbitrarily make allocations, especially when it is for social and economic purposes.
I am sure Hon. Members opposite admit that a lot can be done under those two words. We are saying that an industry consultative process should be set up. It would appeal to the Conservatie Party. As the Hon. Member for Vancouver East (Ms. Mitchell) said when she talked about what the United Fishermen and Allied Workers had told the NDP task force on jobs, Mr. Jack Nichol suggested that there should be set up a development board, which in fact would be the industry regulating the industry. I know that is difficult because in the past there have been disputes and different interests. However, they have one common interest: they are all in the fishing industry and they all want their fair share of it. It is a rich industry in Canada, especially on the west coast.
I should like to say something about the law in this respect. There were two rulings by Mr. Justice Collier of the Federal Court of Canada which indicated that the Department did not have the authority to allocate fish to various user groups, rendering management of the fishery in jeopardy on a national basis. In other words, Mr. Justice Collier's decisions show that the Department does not have the power to allocate fish to various user groups. If it is not possible to allocate to user groups, the Department's activities would be restricted to strictly opening and closing very global fisheries to all users. All it could do is open up the fishery or close it to all different users. It could not discriminate among users.
According to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, this would result in the threat of overharvesting due to combined fishing power of users, and in hardship for many who would be denied access to the resources on the basis of specific allocation. The Department is saying that it cannot live with this situation because it opens it up too much and we could have overharvesting and so on. This has become more and more the argument of the Department.
I listened to the maiden speech of the new Member from Nanaimo. He said that we had to think about the fish-forget about the different users and preserve the fish. That is the basis of the new salmon treaty with the United States. When the Deputy Minister of the Department of Fisheries appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, we asked him who won in the salmon treaty, and he said "the fish won". Everyone applauded because everyone likes the fish and it is nice that fish can win. The only problem is that we cannot take instructions from fish. We cannot consult the fish. Therefore, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can say "this is what the fish want", meaning what it wants. I am not trying to be supercilious; it is always safe to say that we represent the fish, because the fish cannot talk back. We have to be careful with that line of argument, just as we have to be

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
careful with the line of argument that we should stop consulting and get on with some action. Let us protect the fish, let us have some action and so on, but let us do it in the proper way.
Mr. Justice Collier's decisions are worth looking at. The first case involved the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C., the Pacific Coast Salmon Seiners Association, the Prince Rupert Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Mr. Justice Collier granted an injunction preventing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans from setting separate salmon quotas for seiners and gillnetters, prohibiting the Government from allocating the resource between the gear types. This is a case where the Department wanted to allocate for the seiners and gillnetters, not so much for conservation.
In case Hon. Members do not know this, I understand that the seiners put down a big net and scoop up the fish from the bottom. The gillnetters have a net that spreads out. The net of the seiners is like one steaming vegetables; you close the steamer in order to steam the vegetables. That is how the seiners work. The gillnetters have a net that spreads out; the salmon swim into it and catch their gills on it. That simple lesson is the difference between seiners and gillnetters. Mr. Justice Collier gave this interpretation. He said:
Strict interpretation of the Fisheries Act says all groups would have equal access to stocks over an equal area. The Act gives NFO the power to enforce regulations for the preservation and the conservation of the resource,-
As I said-

-to provide for the conservation and protection of fish. [English]
The Act does not give preference to one user group over another, for example, the seiners over the gillnetters. This is the principle or the crux of the Bill we are now debating. According to Mr. Justice Collier, the Fisheries Act and the Constitution Act-I gather that is the Constitution Act of 1982 and the British North America Act of 1876-Sections 91 and 92, set out the powers of the provincial Governments and the federal Government. Looking at these laws, Mr. Justice Collier said that the Government did not have the power to distinguish between one user group; that is, between the seiners and the gillnetters. Therefore, the Department could not act to exclude one from the fishery at a particular time, even by arguing that they really wanted to conserve the fish. What they were doing was deciding between two different groups.
That is why we have this amendment to give power to control on the basis of social and economic reasons, to develop the economic and social benefits flowing from the harvesting of fish.

To develop the economic and social benefits from the use of fish to fishermen and others-

The second case involved the Gulf Trollers Association of British Columbia against the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In August, 1984 Mr. Justice Collier, the same judge, upheld the association's application to quash seven Government orders dated April 16 which permitted commercial fishing between July 1 and August 31, at the same time allowing sport fishing to operate year round. In effect, the Department was allocating the resource by giving preference to one group over another. Here the sport fishers were getting a preference over the commercial fishery. The Gulf Trollers Association, which is one of the commercial fishing groups in British Columbia, went to court and challenged the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
In that case the judge did not accept the Department's argument that it has a federal power to manage and control the fisheries for the benefit of Canadians as distinct from the argument of preserving the stocks. Perhaps my friend who intervened last might be interested in the arguments by Crown counsel. Mr. Gunnar Eggertson, a distinguished counsel against whom the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and 1 have appeared in the Supreme Court in British Columbia at one time or another, was quoted by the Vancouver Sun. It quoted the court reported Mr. Eggertson's argument in court. He said:
Parliament has a duty to the people of Canada to manage the fishery and for the benefit of society and not for the benefit of the people who are in it.
The argument was that we represent the fish, not the people.
It was a decision made for a proper motive. The benefit of the fish and the people of Canada ... insisting that the Fisheries Department's power to manage included the power not to allow any fishing at all-
How to get user groups angry: just say: "Well, Your Lordship, as a matter of fact the Department could outlaw the fishery completely". I again quote Mr. Eggertson:
It is within the powers of the Government of Canada to restrict the troll fleet, even if there is no conservation consideration. There's no right for trollers to any season at all.
He said that we do not even have to bother about conservation, we can even tell them that they cannot fish at all. I do not know the right fishing analogy, but the farm analogy would be the red flag to the bull. No wonder they were angry at the Department. For court purposes, the Department took a pretty strong view, saying: "Forget it, we have complete power". Mr. Justice Collier said they do not have that kind of power at all. He said and I quote:
The April 16 variations of the total closure were, on the evidence presented by the Crown, conceived on two bases; a need for conservation and the intention to favour the sports fishers. The conservation motive was at the ultimate expense of the commercial gulf trollers. The preference. Collier stated, was based on socio-economic consideration which he considered to be beyond DFO's permissible constitutional powers.
How much time do I have left?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member does not have any time left.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will just wind up. I have outlined the two law cases. I have not been able to get into the constitutional
March 11, 1985

matter; the judge challenged the constitutionality. I am agreeable that these changes be made, frankly, with the consultation process.
Let us try and institute an industry consultation process so that the Department cannot do anything on the ground of socio-economic reasons. I do not think the Minister should take a reference on the constitutionality of the Fisheries Act. That would open up more problems. It is only a decision on an injunction, and I do not think he has to do that. I am replying to the debate I had with the Minister the other day. I hope he will read it in Hansard. In conclusion, our position is- [Translation]
-simply to hold consultations with all groups involved in fisheries here on the West Coast and on Canada's East Coast.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments?


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member a question. There is a problem which the Hon. Member recognizes as far as stock availability is concerned in practically every species off the British Columbia coast. He said that he is in agreement with the federal Government making decisions on socio-economic grounds and not just on the grounds of conservation and protection. We are into a new area here.
For purposes of argument, suppose there were five groups of salmon left over which could be caught off the British Columbia coast. Would the hon. gentleman allocate one to the trollers, one to the gillnetters, one to the seiners, one to the sports fishermen and one to the native population? That is what we are getting down to here. We are getting down to the allocation of a resource among user groups because there is not enough of that resource.
I do not know whether or not the question I put to the Hon. Member is unfair. He is not a Government Member. I just wonder about his opinion. Should each user group get an equal share of the resource or, when we get to the point where there is practically nothing left, which one do we erase? Do we erase the sports fishermen, the trollers, the seiners, the gillnetters? I would like the hon. gentleman to comment on that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, hopefully we do not erase anyone and we do enhance the stock. This must be done through a consultation process with some fairness and equity in its management. I would ask the Hon. Member to be careful about how he quotes me. I said that the use of the phrase "social and economic terms" regarding allocation is very wide and that I have some real concerns about that which 1 would like to raise in committee.
Second, I said that if the resource must be allocated on the basis of the social and economic terms, then it must be done with safeguards, and the safeguard I suggested was to have the user groups decide co-operatively what should be done rather than have a distant Fisheries Department decide what should
Fisheries Act
be done. I also said that I recognize that that is not easy. The different groups have different interests and they have a history of arguing among themselves because they have different interests. I think I cited the suggestion of Jack Nichol which is that a Pacific fisheries development board be utilized in which all these groups could take part and have some say in the allocations.
I am optimistic. Everyone on the west coast recognizes that we have a resource that is dwindling. We also recognize that we need a fishing industry. Just as it is for those in the great province of Newfoundland, fishing is a part of the culture of those of us from British Columbia. Where would the province be without its salmon? I represent the only riding on the coast of British Columbia that does not border on the ocean and even I feel fishing and fishermen are very much a part of our culture on the coast.
While the fishermen may have conflicts, they are not stupid. They understand that they must work together and they will work together. Our Party has been suggesting that the resource be allocated over all by the Department but with built-in consultation with the user groups. I think that makes a lot of sense.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to be unfair to the hon. gentleman. After all, he is not a Government Member. However, perhaps his Party does have a view on this question. I would like to repeat the question and narrow it down.
Suppose there was not enough of the resource for all of the user groups.


Mr. Keeper:: As a result of Liberal mismanagement?


George Baker: The Hon. Member says that is the result of Liberal mismanagement. At this point in time, it does not matter who mismanaged the fishery; we have a problem on our hands. I would like to have an indication of the New Democratic Party's position on this important question.
Narrowing the question down further, if there is not enough of the resource left to maintain the user groups, would the Hon. Member and his Party advocate discontinuing the sports fishery? Does he regard the commercial fishery to be of more importance than the sports fishery in salmon, for example? I really would like to receive an answer to the question but I know that the hon. gentleman does not have to answer the question. Perhaps he does have some views on the issue of the sports fishermen versus the commercial fishermen when very little of that resource is left. Would he advocate a discontinuance of the commercial fishery in favour of the sports fishery?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why Liberal Members are so negative about this matter. Perhaps it is because of their years of mismanagement of the fishery. As I told the Hon. Member, I am not negative. He asked me what I would do if I were, God forbid, Minister of Fisheries of the country. I would concentrate on things like salmon enhancement on a huge scale. I would look at some of the things that are being done in Europe in the fish farming sector. I would

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
look to developing our industry the way it has been develop in Denmark, a country which I visited this summer and in which I saw what an efficient fishing industry can do.
It is purely hypothetical to talk about allocating five fish. There will not be five fish. Hopefully, there will be a great many fish. I admit that the different fishery groups are competing and that they have different interests, but they share one over-all interest and that is that they all benefit from the fishery. As I said before, fishermen are not stupid. They understand that.
I see the system working with more than simply the influence of the Minister's advisory committee which he calls on whim to consult when he wishes to consult. I would like to see something written into the legislation which would indicate that a Pacific fisheries development board would be involved. That board would be composed of the people who are most affected, not of some bureaucrats who are 3,000 miles away in Ottawa. I trust the people who are involved in the fishery industry in British Columbia to ultimately come up with suggestions for enhancement, allocation and so on. Naturally I feel that there must be a Fisheries Department in Ottawa to take part in all the different interests.
It is not a question of allocating five fish to five different groups. It is a question of managing an entire industry and having the people who are involved in the industry participate. I invite my friend, who I know has an open mind, to come toward this new social democracy which believes in decentralization, participation and co-operation and is very positive and new and is looking to the future. I invite him to come to the era of the 1990s and to throw out all that old baggage. Come on over here. We will have a new beginning and we will develop the fishery industries on the west coast and the east coast together.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, one of the interesting aspects of this Bill is the question of its constitutionality. We could allow this Bill to pass through the House of Commons and it could be put in place, but what would happen if, in the middle of the salmon season this coming summer, a dissatisfied fisherman on the west coast suddenly took the matter to court, said this is against the constitution and the Federal Court granted an injunction against the fishing plan and threw this amendment out of court? A judge from the Federal Court has indicated that this could happen and the Government has indicated that this could happen.
Would there be merit in putting this Bill through the House with the Minister's guidelines and mechanisms for consultation and referring it to the Supreme Court so it may make a judgment as to whether or not this Bill will stand up constitutionally? I wonder if my hon. colleague might give us an indication of whether it might be wise to do so at this point or wait until the season collapses this summer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I ask for a short answer from the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I draw the Hon. Member's attention to the statement made by the Minister on March 6, 1985, as reported on page 2789 of Hansard. To be very fair to the Minister, this is a problem with which the Minister must struggle. The Minister got out of these two court cases by having us amend this law but he cannot get out of the constitutionality question.
I do not think I would like to give a quick answer to this question. I think we should hear from the Minister in committee. As my friend pointed out, there will be problems if someone challenges this in the middle of the season. I think that must be considered in committee.
I have already given my own opinion as a constitutional lawyer. I would not like to see the Minister give this matter a quick reference to the court. I would prefer to have him wait, but I could be persuaded otherwise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The period allowed for questions and comments has unfortunately expired.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with the rule of relevance. I want to say, with respect to the rule of relevance, that the only relevant thing the Hon. Member said was God forbid he should ever become the Minister of Fisheries.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on debate.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the Hon. Member trembles in fear at the prospect of my colleague becoming the Minister of Fisheries. Of course, there are real prospects that that will happen. The Liberals dread that. They have the notion that somehow they will automatically return to office. That is a myth of Canadian politics which is fast passing. Therefore, I can understand why my hon. colleague trembles in fear at the prospect of the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) becoming Minister of Fisheries.
This legislation is important. I represent a constituency which does not have people who primarily make their living by way of the fishery, but it is still important legislation. It is important for a number of reasons.
One of the reasons is that this legislation gives a legislative mandate to a Minister and to the executive which will give them the power to allocate resources among competing groups. The legislation provides absolute authority over the economic well-being of people. Any time we give unfettered authority to an executive, it raises questions. Any time we give absolute power to anyone, it lights a red light. Perhaps at this point it is a yellow light, but it is telling us to wait a minute and examine what is being done by this legislation. The legislation will give
March 11, 1985

absolute authority to the Minister to allocate fish among various user groups; for example, sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and native people. To give that authority without guidelines or criteria upon which decisions can be made causes me to question the move which the Government has taken.
There is a principle of holding those wielding power accountable. That is the basic notion of democracy. It is the basic principle which underpins the existence of this place. The purpose of having Parliament is to hold executive power accountable. Originally, Parliaments were set up in an attempt to bring some accountability to the exercise of power by the kings of old. In fact, the arbitrary use of power in historical circumstances even led to the loss of one's head being taken by a king. It is a serious question. I am not suggesting that we should behead the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), but I think it is important to mention the absolute authority which is being given to an executive. We must do that with caution.
It is surprising that the Conservative Government has brought forward legislation which offers absolute authority to a member of the executive. Over the last number of years, the Conservative Party had a proud tradition in the House of speaking in support of parliamentary democracy. The Conservative Party, when in opposition, told the Government that it could not be arrogant and that it must be accountable to the people. It is sad that the Conservatives, now that they are in office, are changing their ways. They are no longer acting the way they did when they were in opposition. Surely, a Party which has a long tradition of concern about Parliament would draft legislation which clearly spells out the basis upon which the Government will act. This legislation fails that test.
There is another area in which this legislation is wanting; that is the whole question of meaningful consultation. Obviously, in order for government in this large country to work, it is necessary to consult with the groups which are affected by government decisions. It is also necessary for those consultations to be meaningful. It is not adequate simply to have conversations about fisheries; there must be meaningful consultation. The government must provide a real opportunity for groups which are affected by its decisions to have an impact on the direction of government policy.
The united opposition of the groups which are affected by this legislation-sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and native people-is testimony to the fact that the consultations which have taken place to date have not been adequate. I am trying to be fair in giving the Government some credit when it says that it has consulted with people. However, somewhere along the road those consultations have broken down and failed. If the consultations had been successful, there would have been support from people in the fisheries for the legislation. Surely, we must accept the proposition that the people who actually fish are just as concerned, if not more so, as the Government about the conservation of the fishery. Obviously, the legislation has been brought before the House on the presupposition that the Government needs authority to
Fisheries Act
manage the fishery in order that the resources can be conserved. But we must accept that the people who are involved in the fisheries have, as their first interest, the conservation of the fishery. If the people who are committed to the fishery still find the legislation, in spite of its high aims, to the wanting, then there are some real questions which must be addressed.
When the Conservative Party was running for office it promised a new era of co-operation and it promised to go beyond confrontation in government. It is ironic and sad that it should be the Party which, now that it is in office, has failed to carry out the necessary and meaningful consultations with the groups which are affected. Again, this Government, when it was in opposition, said one thing, in the election campaign said one thing, but now that it is in office it is behaving in the opposite way. The Government is imposing policies and legislation upon a community, rather than having the legislation and policy develop out of the community and adopted by the Government.
As long as we are being asked to give this sweeping authority to allocate the various user groups to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, I think it is legitimate to ask whether the people who are involved in the fisheries trust that Department to have such unfettered authority. Is there a basis upon which the people in the fishing industry could agree that they would like some guidelines for this Department to operate under, but in the absence of those guidelines they have experienced such a good working relationship with this Department over the years that they know it will only act in their best interests? I believe that most Canadians would find it difficult to bring themselves to a point where they could say to a government bureaucracy: "We will just trust that what you do will be in our best interests. We will just trust that the rules and regulations you make, which have a life and death impact on our incomes, will be fair and equitable and will allow us to continue to make a decent income".
Most of us have had experience in dealing with large bureaucracies, not only in the public sector but in the private sector as well. We have all been frustrated by the experience of trying to have our needs met and our voices heard. The Conservative Party, I must point out, Mr. Speaker, was a very strong critic of the abuse of bureaucratic authority when it was in opposition. Those Hon. Members were very strong critics of administrative fiat. I believe this Government deserves some credit in terms of the income tax area. It has made a number of commitments that Canadians would be treated more fairly in their relationship with the Department of National Revenue. I have some real doubts whether that is going to come about in practice, as I am sure most Canadians have, but at least the Government has said that there is a need to recognize the rights of citizens. It has announced and issued a Bill of Rights for taxpayers which is a commitment on behalf of the Government and the Department of National Revenue to treat taxpayers fairly. Wouldn't it be nice, Mr. Speaker, if the Government would take the same attitude in the area of the fisheries, rather than simply asking for a blank cheque for the

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
Department of Fisheries and Oceans to regulate the fishery and to allocate it among the various user groups, and to have this absolute power over the capacity of individuals and communities to earn a living. Wouldn't it be nice, Mr. Speaker, if government approached the area of the fisheries in such a way that it came before this Parliament and said: "We need authority to manage the resource, to ensure conservation and fairness in the allocation of the resource among the various groups, and to show you our commitment to fairness we will lay out guidelines under which the people in the fisheries will be treated fairly"? Why not have a Bill of Rights for fishermen, Mr. Speaker, instead of a request for a blanket authority?
When I was a child, Mr. Speaker, I lived on an island on Lake Winnipeg. The community in which I grew up was a fishing community. Everyone there made their living through the fishery, so I have some idea of what it is like to be dependent upon this resource for one's income. I also have some awareness, at least from a Manitoban perspective, of how the fishermen view the officials who are involved in managing the resource.
I mention this, Mr. Speaker, because I feel that if over the years a relationship of trust had been built up between the fishermen and the Department based on actual experience, it would be more credible for the Minister to come before this House and ask for such wide-sweeping authority for his officials to regulate this industry. But I know from my own experience that the perception-I will not make the case whether or not that perception is completely accurate-among small fishing communities, certainly in Manitoba, is often that the officials who are involved in managing the resource do it in a way that at least appears to be arbitrary and that they do not take into account the real and practical aspects of making a living from fishing. Often the regulations become obstacles to a person making his living.
In fact, in northern Manitoba up until now the community of Norway House, which is a small native community located right on the lake, has no access to the fishery and they have had no adequate explanation as to why they have not. Officials involved in the management of the fishery are often viewed in a less than favourable light, so to ask for complete authority for those officials to regulate the fisheries without laying out the guidelines as to how this will be done to ensure it will be done fairly is not reasonable. It is asking too much.
We would be willing to give this blanket authority to the Government, this absolute power to regulate the fishery in any way it wants, if the Canadian people could say with some confidence that they trusted this Government unequivocally, without question. If the Canadian people could say that their trust in this Government was such that they believed it would fulfil all of the promises it made, then perhaps we could say on their behalf: "We are glad to give you this blanket authority because we know from experience that you won't in any way abuse that authority".
But if we are to give the Government the authority to manage the fishery on the basis of trust, then we have to ask
ourselves what has been our experience to date with this Government? Our experience has been one of constant reversals of positions, of broken promises and broken trusts. When those Hon. Members opposite were running for office they promised, "jobs, jobs, jobs". Now that they are in office, their priorities have been switched. Their priority now is cutting public spending. They are focusing all of their attention on economic policy, on the deficit, and they have forgotten about their commitment to provide employment for people.
When those Hon. Members were running for office, they said that universality and social programs, medicare, pensions and family allowances were a sacred trust. What have they done, Mr. Speaker? Shortly after those Hon. Members were elected to office they started to raise questions about universality, and they have raised so many questions about universality that the people across this country are very concerned about what the Government might do with pensions and family allowances. So there is no basis for trust in this Government when it comes to asking for broad, wide and sweeping authority without any limits or guidelines.
When those Hon. Members opposite were running for office, Mr. Speaker, they said they would reduce public spending by cutting out waste. Shortly after they were elected to office, November 8 to be specific, a series of cut-backs was started which affected the substance of various programs, including the area of the fisheries.
My time is running out, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to say that I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate because I believe it is important that when a Government asks for authority to act in any area, that that authority be limited and that the Government defines precisely what it wants to do before it brings legislation to this House.
It should not come here asking for a blanket authority and absolute trust.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: On behalf of the Government of Canada and, I am sure, Hon. Members of this House, I rise to extend our condolences to the Government of the Soviet Union, the Soviet people, and the family of Mr. Chernenko, on the untimely death of the leader of the Soviet Union. Mr. Chernenko's death was not unexpected. He had been ailing for several months.
March 11, 1985

He rose from inconspicuous beginnings through the Soviet bureaucracy to the supreme position in the Soviet Government. While his style did not mark a departure from that of previous Soviet leaders, men and women of good will around the world will be hoping that the appointment of a successor from the new generation may mark a new approach to the contentious issues dividing East and West.
The hopes of the world for an easing of tensions and a step forward toward lasting peace are pinned on the arms talks now going on at Geneva. It can be regarded as a sign of hope that those in charge of the direction of the Soviet Union have seen fit to authorize the peace talks to continue. It may be that the world is on the threshold of its greatest opportunity for new approaches to the issues that have divided us since the end of World War 11. I am sure that Members in this House, and Canadians everywhere, will share the conviction that the time is now for a concerted world effort to banish forever the dreadful threat of nuclear holocaust hanging over the world.
While it is unrealistic to expect a radical change in Soviet objectives as a result of a change in leadership, a new leader may bring about a change in style, and a more open approach which in itself would result in an easing of tensions. Many of us had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Gorbachev when he visited Ottawa, and were impressed with his readiness to discuss issues bluntly and openly. In his recent visit to England he created a favourable impression on the British public.
Regardless of who the new leader is, men and women throughout the world will look forward with hope to positive steps by the superpowers to back away from the abyss of nuclear confrontation. The arms control talks and the appointment of a new Soviet leader present an opportunity that should not be missed. It is an opportunity for positive steps at the world level to inject a new style in relations between East and West, and to place the future of the human family above sectarian interests.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, it is with regret that the Official Opposition has learned today of the death of President Konstantin Chernenko.
Mr. Chernenko had devoted his life to the service of his country, and in the brief period that he was President of the Soviet Union he worked to improve the prospect for peace in the world by resuming peace talks with the United States of America, in Geneva.
The Official Opposition extends its sincere condolences to the Government and people of the Soviet Union and to the family of the late President. We wish to take this opportunity to ensure that the Government reaffirms our strong desire to work in co-operation and friendship with the Soviet Union to further the search for a true and lasting order of world peace and security.
The Soviet Union stands at an important threshold. A new generation of leaders will decide the future destiny of not only the Soviet Union but also possibly of mankind. It is our sincere hope that President Chernenko's reported successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, will continue the late President's efforts along the
Tributes
elusive path of peace. Mr. Gorbachev's visit to Canada and to other western nations will hopefully have given him a personal insight into our great desire for peace and co-operation with the Soviet Union.
1 can assure the Canadian people that this Party will continue to urge the Government, no matter what the difficulties, to work with the Soviet Union to rid the world of the scourge of war.

Mr. Speaker, we were very sorry to hear the news of President Chernenko's death, and we wish to offer the people and the Government of that great country our sincere sympathy.
We were pleased to hear that Mr. Gorbachev has been appointed the new leader of the Soviet Union. We had the opportunity to meet him in Canada when he met with Members of Parliament. He appeared to have the makings of a modern leader with an open mind, and we hope that remembering the friendship he showed our country when he was in Canada, he will try to get to know us and understand us better. In fact, this may be an opportunity for the Government of Canada to show that we are an independent country, and that we may have a role to play between the two superpowers, so that a durable and lasting peace may be achieved in this very troubled world.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party 1 would like to extend our deepest sympathy to the family of Mr. Chernenko. 1 would also like to extend our deepest sympathy to the people of the Soviet Union who have now lost their third leader in three years. This is a cause for great sadness for any society.
We welcome the choice of Mr. Gorbachev to succeed Mr. Chernenko. He is a man of relative youth and vigour in terms of international leadership, as was displayed very forcefully to those of us who had the opportunity of meeting him when he was in Canada. Although here in his capacity of Minister of Agriculture, he did show a very deep understanding and concern about arms control matters. Those of us who had the opportunity to question him in committee found that he was relatively open to ideas emanating from a variety of nations, including Canada, on arms control and disarmament matters.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chernenko was not in office a sufficiently long enough time for us to be able to discern the degree to which he, too, would have pursued arms control and disarmament matters, nor the degree to which he would have pursued a greater opening up of Soviet society.
Mr. Gorbachev and those around him-and I hope one of these days we will see that number include a prominent woman-do, it seems to me, have a concern about Soviet society itself and the possible opening up of that society, particularly in the human rights field. So, while joining with the Soviet people in their grief at the death of their leader, we welcome an opportunity, and hope and trust that the Govern-

March 11, 1985
ment will take advantage of the opportunity to develop even closer relations with the Soviet Union, an even greater degree of understanding on our part, and help to promote an ever greater understanding on theirs.


Mr. Speaker:: I seek to learn the disposition of the House. Normally at this point there would be three or four minutes left in the period for Statements under Standing Order 21. Should I assume that the House would like to have the regular amount of time for Statements under Standing Order 21, and Oral Questions?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to extend the time to allow full statements and the usual Question Period. Under the circumstances this seems fair and equitable.
O)


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. House Leader for the Official Opposition agree?


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore I will call for Statements pursuant to Standing Order 21.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on Black Thursday, November 8, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) perpetrated his vicious attacks on the people of Canada when he presented his cut-back program.
One group who can least afford these cut-backs and increases in taxes and surcharges are the farmers of Canada. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association recently sent a letter to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) indicating to him that the fees for grading to be charged by the Government are excessive and unfair, and were implemented without consultation.
Although the Minister says that the fee will be 67 cents per head of cattle, he failed to indicate that the smaller meat processing plants will have to pay some $125 service charge every time an inspector walks through the door.
The farmers involved in horticulture and other areas have also expressed strong disagreement with this measure.
Thanks to the previous Liberal Government, Canada had the best beef grading system in the world, and the Tories should not be allowed to dismantle it. The cattlemen of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell produce some 78,000 head of cattle. They are good productive farmers who only want a fair
chance to make an honest living. I ask the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to repeal the introduction of grading fees in the interest of good agricultural practices for this country.



MEN'S CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP-NORTHERN ONTARIO RINK VICTORIOUS

Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Times-News in Thunder Bay this morning bore the headline "Switchman Derails Ryan's Express". This imaginative title aptly describes yesterday's victory by Thunder Bay's A1 Hackner, a locomotive switchman, over Alberta's Pat Ryan, whose rink had curled 11 consecutive winning games at the Canadian men's curling championship in Moncton, New Brunswick.
The winning quartet of skip Hackner, third Rick Lang, second Ian Tetley, and lead Pat Perroud, came from behind in the tenth end after a brilliant shot by Hackner created a tie. They went on to win in a tie breaking 11th end after Ryan's last throw left hackner's the shot rock. This gave Hackner's Northern Ontario foursome a six-five win over Alberta.
This is the fourth time Hackner has appeared in the Brier, and the second time he has won. He was runner-up in 1980 and 1981, and then won the Canadian and world championships in 1982.
The citizens of northwestern Ontario are extremely proud of these fine amateur athletes. As New Democratic spokesperson for amateur sport, and especially as the Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, I extend my best wishes to these very talented young men as they leave later this month to represent Canada at the Silver Broom in Scotland. I also look forward to seeing them at the Olympic Games in Calgary in 1988.



IMPROPER LABELLING ON CLOTHING IMPORTS

Mr. Norman Warner (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am most concerned about the amount of imported clothing that is not properly labelled and is being sold to Canadian consumers. In a five-month period, Customs and Excise inspected 30 per cent of the clothing shipments to Canada. One-third of the inspected shipments had inadequate or misleading labelling.
I have with me an example of this mislabelling. It states "Top quality hosiery-genuine wool 51 per cent, polyester 19 per cent, nylon 30 per cent". Laboratory tests indicate that there is no wool, no polyester, and no nylon in these socks. What are Canadian consumers buying? I don't know, and they don't know either. What we do know is that they are not buying what is described on the labels.

This situation is most alarming when one considers that 243.6 million garments of every type and description, including pants, suits, blouses, jackets, shirts, and sweaters were imported to Canada in 1984. In January, 1985, import permits were up 40 per cent. This year, if 5 per cent of the imported garments are mislabelled, then half of the entire Canadian population could purchase mislabelled imported clothing. This could affect every Canadian family.



COMMONWEALTH DAY


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, today is Commonwealth Day. This is an annual event which owes its origin to a Canadian proposal made during the 1975 Heads of Government meeting that was held in that year in Jamaica. The proposal is that the second Monday in March should be so designated in order to underline, in Canada and all other Commonwealth countries, the importance we attach to this unique association of 49 countries of great diversity in terms of size, colour, race, creed, culture, and at all stages of economic development.
Across Canada today special programs have been planned, especially in schools and public libraries, to mark this special occasion. Yesterday, special inter-faith services were held in various centres across the country to mark Commonwealth Day in Canada. This evening, all parliamentarians are invited to a special reception hosted by the Commonwealth High Commissioners in the Confederation Room in the West Block, to mark this very important occasion. Speaking on behalf of the executive and members of the Canadian Branch of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I want to say how pleased and honoured we are to be able to associate ourselves with the celebration of Commonwealth Day.
Commonwealth Day is an important institution to all of
us-


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



FEDERAL-NEWFOUNDLAND AGREEMENT ON OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT

Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to address some issues with respect to Newfoundland energy. Since 1978 the New Democratic Party has supported the view that the offshore belongs to the provinces. Therefore we applauded the recent deal respecting Hibernia, and I said so in the House.
We also suggested that it be taken further and enshrined as a constitutional amendment. However, we warned that News'. O. 21
foundlanders should not forget about their fish, forests, their mines, and renewable resources, by putting all their eggs into the Hibernia basket. These other resources must be developed as well.
I am worried that the rate of development in Hibernia will not be controlled by the Newfoundland Government or the Canadian Government, but by Mobil Oil which is 100 per cent American owned. Mobil is very difficult to deal with on many issues. I have a suggestion for the Government of Canada. By chance, FIRA must approve the take-over by Mobil of Canadian Superior Oil. I suggest that Mobil should be forced to sell shares to a minority of Canadian shareholders so that it is faced with a minority share interest and must look after the needs of Newfoundlanders and Canadians. This can be done in the same way that the Government forced Texaco and Chevron to comply, in a previous ruling. That would be helpful to the interests of Newfoundland and Canada.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, this past weekend I had the opportunity to participate in an environmental day in Niagara Falls sponsored by Canadians for a Clean Environment. As the representative of the federal Government I was very pleased to be able to provide details of our new program to limit acid rain. This is the most comprehensive attack on pollution conceived in this country's history, and in that we can all take pride.
This new program is also timely in its announcement. We can now discuss environmental concerns with clean hands. In the past, our negotiations with the Americans have been hampered by our failure to take initiatives which would demonstrate our own commitment to deal with the environment. Today, that no longer can be said.
I am pleased that these issues will be first on the agenda at the meeting between the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States. I would urge the Prime Minister, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Greni-er) and members of the federal delegation to impress upon our neighbours to the south the need for an all-encompassing attack on pollution, dealing not only with the air that we breath but also with the water that we drink.
The levels of toxic wastes in the Niagara River continue to be of major concern to the people in my riding and to those whose drinking water originates in Lake Ontario. We must do everything within our power to convince our American friends that together we should begin the long and difficult process of restoring the Niagara River to the state in which it should be. I know that the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment share those concerns as strongly as the people of my riding.

March 11, 1985



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Mininster of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Banff National Park has been welcoming Canadians and people from around the world for over 100 years. This year Parks Canada is celebrating its centennial, and one of the events that all Canadians can take pride in was the last of the 1985 Women's World Cup ski races that took place in Sunshine Village, deep in Banff National Park. To keep pace with the moment, one of Canada's many bright and capable young skiers, Miss Laurie Graham, took first place in the women's downhill race.
This World Cup event draws attention and is a tribute to the success that our country can enjoy when we are able to maximize the co-operation between athletes representing our nation, companies like Husky Oil which sponsor them, the officials of Parks Canada managing our parks system, and the entrepreneurs in places like Sunshine Village, Banff.
The centennial of our National Parks system, Mr. Speaker, has been highlighted by this event, and it speaks volumes about what happens when we work together.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Union of Postal Workers and its president, Jean-Claude Parrot, have been negotiating with Canada Post for eight months in order to obtain a collective agreement that will guarantee job security. A tentative agreement has just been announced, which although it has yet to be ratified, is certainly a major achievement. Canada Post, through the collective bargaining process, has been able to obtain the flexibility it was seeking as well as a reasonable monetary settlement.

Job security for postal workers means fewer Canadians on unemployment insurance or welfare. It means continued and uninterrupted postal service. It means that small business can get on with the job it does best, creating employment for people. This agreement establishes a precedent, that it is indeed possible to negotiate job security for employees without long drawn out work stoppages, when both the employer and the employees are prepared to negotiate in good faith.
Collective bargaining can work. Mediation can help. We have a collective agreement and a settlement in the postal talks. Thank you, Mr. Parrot. Thank you, Mr. Warren. We welcome this settlement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, by March 31 the current quota system on Japanese car imports will expire. The Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) has stated in this House that "when Canada reaches a decision, it will be a decision in the best interests of Canada".
Until we develop and implement an automobile strategy on our own, Mr. Speaker, the automobile manufacturers, parts manufacturers, and the auto workers of Canada warn us that thousands of automobile related jobs are at risk if these quotas are not extended.
We know that Canada's strong period of growth over recent years was largely due to major investments and sales in the North American automobile industry and the quota system.
We know that the importance of the automobile industry in this country cannot be underestimated.
We know, as well, that the American decision to end quotas on imports will put our manufacturers under severe stress and strain.
Two years ago the special task report on the automobile industry recommended that the Government pursue a trade policy that would require all vehicle manufacturers to make binding commitments in investment and jobs. We would need a much more open market in Japan, or substantially more investment from the Japanese, before we should even consider dropping the quotas.
Too much is at stake for Canadian jobs and the survival of the Canadian automobile industry for the Government not to make the best decision possible for Canadians-continue the quotas.


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



DISARMAMENT


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, with a new spirit of hope and peace, all the world anxiously awaits tomorrow's resumption of arms control negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union. The Geneva talks mark a new beginning in the long and often bumpy road to world peace. We in Canada congratulate both sides for re-dedicating their efforts to the peace process. The talks will not be easy. The issues involved are complex and very detailed, offering no simple solutions or quick answers, but it is the act of negotiating the world welcomes. Progress for peace can only be accomplished through practical dialogue and meaningful co-operation.
Canadians join the world in rejoicing at the prospect of lasting nuclear arms control between the two superpowers. We


share a dream with each and every person on this planet that our children will grow up and live in a peaceful, safe world.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the Government for its recent announcement that $20 million in additional funding has been allocated to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council.
These additional funds will enable the Council to respond to some of the over 1,400 applications for research equipment currently before it.
The fact that the Government made this announcement despite the severe financial constraints confronting it, demonstrates the importance the Government attaches to university research.
The previous Government made no provision for dealing with these equipment applications, and had the new Government not stepped in, university researchers would have been seriously impeded in their work.
The previous Government's attitude toward university research and the NSERC Council is reflected in the numerous cuts it made to the Council's first five-year plan, a plan which was first approved by the Progressive Conservative Government in 1979. The new Government's approach is illustrated by last week's announcement, and by the statement of the Minister of Science and Technology (Mr. Siddon) when Supplementary Estimates for NSERC were brought forward in November. At that time he said:
We recognize that R & D is fundamental to our over-all plan for economic and social development in Canada and that the success of NSERC's programs in universities is a prerequisite to that national effort.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on Friday, March 8, 1985, meets the requirement of the Standing Orders as to form.']
Mr. Speaker:: The Oral Question Period will last until eleven minutes past three o'clock. The Hon. Member for Saint-Mau-rice.



Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the many changes in the policies of the Government, the transformation of policies, and a lot of insecurity this has caused in
Oral Questions
many provinces, and in view of the fact that Quebec is talking about imposing a special tax on its citizens because of the difficulties that Province is facing at this time, is it not possible for the Minister to do what the previous Government did last year, that is, to extend for one year the equalization payment formula so that weaker provinces like Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec, and Manitoba could use that money to soften the blows they are receiving with the big change in the economy at this time?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the problems which the various provinces are facing under the equalization program were established because of the equalization formula that was put in place by the Government of which the Hon. Member was a part, three years ago in 1982. That formula was not extended a year ago. It expires on March 31, 1985, and that was the original plan for transitional payments.


An Hon. Member:: You are supposed to be smarter.


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: There have been a number of discussions with people, the Premier of Quebec, the Finance Minister of Quebec, with the Province of Manitoba and other provinces, on this difficult issue. All I would say to the Hon. Member is that we have to face difficult financial problems at the federal government level, as he well knows. We are determined to face those problems, as was set out in the November 8 statement. I suggest the Hon. Member wait a bit before we get an answer on the equalization payments.


QUEBEC INDUSTRIES
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Hon. Member has not given a final word, and that there is still hope.
I have another question in the same kind of economic sphere.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, today in the Province of Quebec, we are facing some major problems. We do not know what is going to happen to the Domtar project. We have had factory closings at Wabasso and Philips in Trois-Rivieres, at Melchers in Berth-ier, Carbures in Shawinigan, Oxysyntheses at Becancour, Pecheries Cartier in the Gaspe and many others. The Department of Transport is about to close down VIA Rail in Montreal, and at Air Canada, hundreds of people are being transferred from Montreal to Toronto. Considering the major problems confronting the Province of Quebec, could the Minister consider the following: extending the equalization program for a period of one year, as I asked in my previous question, and helping Domtar as Quebecers are requesting, especially since the Minister's colleague, the Minister of National Defence, has just been allocated $100 million to send more military personnel to Europe?

March 11, 1985


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we are not unmindful of the economic problems currently being faced in the Province of Quebec. We have negotiated the first Economic and Regional Development Agreement with the Province of Quebec since 1974.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Since then a number of subagreements have been negotiated. In addition, the Minister of National Defence has announced the purchase of some eight jet planes from Canadair. We are not unmindful of the problems in the Province of Quebec.
The specific question which the Hon. Member asked was whether we could move ahead with this agreement. The Prime Minister was in Quebec City last week and had some very extensive discussions with the Premier of Quebec on the problem. We should have an answer very shortly.


SHIPBUILDING
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think there is a difference between signing an agreement and the money involved. It is easy to sign documents that provide less funding for Canadians than the programs we introduced at the time.
I have another question for the Minister of Finance.
Am I correct in saying, for instance, that the Government, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister indicated at his press conference last Friday, has virtually decided to do away for ever with subsidies for shipyards throughout Canada?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we do know how to sign agreements and how to put them into effect. That is what was done with the ERDA agreement which we just signed. Maybe the Hon. Member should explain to the House why an ERDA agreement was not signed for the last 10 years, if he is so good at signing things.


Mr. Axworthy:: The program is only one year old.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: There was a new agreement signed on ERDA. If the Hon. Member doesn't know about it, I will send a copy of it over to him.
DOMTAR-NEGOTIATION OF SOLUTIONS BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND PREMIER LfiVESQUE


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, whom I wish to welcome back to Canada. He must have thought there had been some developments in the Domtar case since he left. Mr. Speaker, for two weeks now, the Prime Minister has been stalling for time in the Domtar case. He was probably waiting for his senior Minister to get back.
I would therefore ask the Minister, now that the Prime Minister has met with his Quebec counterpart to discuss the Domtar case, whether he could inform the House today what kind of solution the Prime Minister has negotiated with the Premier of Quebec to rescue the Domtar project in Windsor.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, it is quite correct that there was a meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, at which various economic issues in the Province of Quebec were discussed, including the Domtar situation, but there were certainly no conclusions. As my colleague, the Minister of Finance, has indicated, this type of thing will be commented upon in due course.
I can only say that as far as the forest industry is concerned, which of course the Domtar situation falls under, I will be meeting with the Forest Industry Advisory Council in about a week. They, in turn, will be bringing me up to date on what is their current attitude concerning the forest industry, any new modernization which may be required. Most specifically, I want to hear from them whether they still say that no grants should be extended to member companies in that industry for increases in capacity.


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
If the Minister would bother to read the statements made by the pulp and paper producers association, he would realize that there never was any question of the association saying no subsidy should be given to pulp and paper companies, and according to what the Prime Minister said in the House, this clarification was provided by the association.
My question is as follows. We know there was a meeting on Friday. We know that work on the project must start before spring thaw. We cannot wait while the Minister consults for months on end. Every week, costs are increasing because of the Minister of Finance's policies. Interest rates are going up every week.


DOMTAR-MINISTER'S POSITION
[Stage Direction]
March 11, 1985
[Stage Direction]
Is the Minister prepared to make the same undertaking as his colleagues from the Eastern Townships and promise the House that we shall have an answer by next Saturday?
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I thought the answer was abundantly clear. Domtar's request for a SI 17 million grant has been refused. That is where it stands.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Churchill.


An Hon. Member:: Now we know where the power is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is it the intention of the Government to continue the Liberal scheme on equalization which will result in Quebec, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island receiving less money in equalization payments next year than they are receiving at the present time? Is it the intention of the Government to maintain that Liberal policy?


Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that the Prime Minister and I have both had discussions with members of the Manitoba Government. That decision will be taken shortly. We are exploring ways of trying to meet the needs of the Province of Manitoba as well as those of the Province of Quebec, but he has to recognize that it is a larger problem. The federal Government has probably a more severe financial problem that the provinces affected have. It is for that reason we have to be very careful on how we address this issue.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the Minister of Finance pleads poverty versus the cases of the poorer provinces. My supplementary question is directed to him. When will those four provinces know whether they will receive less money than they receive this present year? When will they find out?


Geoff Wilson: Shortly.
Oral Questions TRUST COMPANIES


PIONEER TRUST-SITUATION OF UNINSURED DEPOSITORS
Geoff Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. It concerns the collapse of Pioneer Trust. The Minister will be aware of the fact that the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation bailed out uninsured depositors in the Grey-mac, Seaway, and Crown Trust affair in Ontario. Will the Minister inform the House whether the CDIC is planning the same action for the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, in the case of Greymac, Seaway, and some of the earlier companies, including Fidelity, CDIC entered into an agency agreement which it is allowed to do under a certain section of the Act, provided that there are savings to the corporation as a result. In the case of Pioneer Trust, those calculations were made and it was concluded that there would be no savings to CDIC, after careful examination. There is no agency agreement and the company is in liquidation. Therefore it is not possible for CDIC, under legislation, to pay off uninsured depositors.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. First I welcome him back from his magical mystery tour. I am sure, now that he has seen the programs of his Department unravel in the meantime, he probably wished he had never come back. In his letter to Domtar cancelling the project, he stated that the difficulty was the fear of U.S. retaliation. That was one of the reasons given for cancelling the grant. Is it now the policy of the Government on any industrial grant applied for by a Canadian company to take into consideration first whether the United States Government agrees or disagrees? Will that be the criterion by which we determine whether Canadian companies obtain grants? Does he not consider that to be a serious compromise on our sovereignty in determining our own industrial structure and how we should go about helping our own industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member who referred to my tour, I assure him that the results of it will be demonstrated in coming months and years as we develop new trade associations and relationships with the countries which I had an opportunity to visit. He will also find that investment flows will once again start coming back into Canada, partly from those countries.
In reply to the Hon. Member's question-do we consult first with officials in the United States before we can consider

March 11, 1985
Oral Questions
making a grant in Canada-the answer, of course, is no, but I would say that as a consideration in making a grant, when a company such as Domtar tells you that the plant that it intends to build would have 49 per cent of the total Canadian capacity and you ask where are you going to sell that extra capacity, and they tell you substantially in the United States, certainly with the delicate nature that exists with respect to our trade in forest products with the United States, it is very natural to inquire from our officials what they feel would be a reaction in the United States if there was such a new exportation of this single product into that country.


CROWN CORPORATIONS-ELIGIBILITY FOR GRANTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister that this sounds like the new Fortune magazine philosophy of the Conservative Government, that we really do not want to export our products, we are afraid to export them, and we are going to establish involuntary restraints without even being asked.
I want to raise a question with the Minister on another aspect. He said in his Estimates that the Government would no longer give any grants to Crown corporations or any companies in which Crown corporations hold interest. The Prime Minister contradicted that statement on March 1. Is the Minister now going to rescind that policy that he made in his Estimates, that Crown corporations, federal and provincial, are no longer eligible for grants, or is the Prime Minister not telling it as it is in this House of Commons?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member who talks about some kind of voluntary restraints, the fact is we have no objection to Domtar through its own good resources building the plant and exporting to the United States. There is no suggestion on our part that it should not do it.
All we are saying is that a profitable company such as Domar does not have to turn to the federal Treasury for the funding that it requested. Bearing in mind the deficit position in Ottawa, that was part of the reason why we said we could not accommodate it. As far as the Crown corporations are concerned, if the Hon. Member would have one of his researchers, or even he himself do a little better homework, he would find that those statements are entirely consistent with each other.


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have questions for the Prime Minister on the forthcoming summit meeting that will take place between himself and President Reagan. He was not in the House on Friday. He is not here today. There may be good reasons for it, but we certainly hope
that before that summit takes place the Opposition will have occasion to put directly to him important questions that concern the future of our country.
In his absence, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question that is going to be discussed at the summit meeting. It concerns, of course, the linkage that a number of American officials have made between the star wars project of President Reagan and the modernization of the radar facilities in our DEW Line. It was proposed by two officials before there was a linkage. A third was added to the list on Friday. Considering that Mr. Richard Burt, in his briefing of Canadian journalists, says there is a linkage, why does the Canadian Government continue to say the opposite?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I do not know how long the Leader of the New Democratic Party will pursue this course of deliberate anti-Americanism by quoting half the statements of American officials. Mr. Burt made it clear that his initial statement was a mistake. The Hon. Member should know that the Department of the Secretary of State in the United States said clearly, and I quote from the statement:
With regard to the upgrading of the DEW Line and its replacement with the North Warning radars, the Department can state clearly and categorically that the North Warning System being planned by Canada and the United States is not part of the Strategic Defence Initiative Program.
The Hon. Member knows that. He was told and read that statement on Friday. He raises it again today in a deliberate attempt to try to sour relations, and try to frustrate the development of jobs here in this country. I consider that to be unacceptable behaviour.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO UNITED STATES OFFICIALS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs reveals his usual intellectual mastery of a complex subject. There is no attempt on this side of the House to be anti-American or anything else.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is normally proper to grant the questioner the right to ask his question. Will the House please do that?


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, American official after American official, whether it is the Secretary of Defense, a senior policy advisor on defence matters, or an American who briefs Canadian journalists, are all saying there is a linkage between the two. The Minister has a lot of nerve saying that we are distorting the truth. He is doing it. Why does the Canadian Government continue to say the opposite to what the Americans are saying?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr, Speaker, one of the reasons we differ from time to time with what the Americans say is that we are a sovereign
March 11, 1985

country, and we intend to remain that way. On this particular question, the responses by the Canadian and American Governments have been the same, because the fact is there is no relation between SDI and the North Warning System. That is well known. That has been established. I personally do not understand why the Hon. Member, representing a constituency that relies, as it does, upon good relations with the United States of America, would go out of his way to try to sour relations between his country and the United States.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly understand why the Member is no longer Prime Minister of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


PETRO-CANADA SALE OF COME-BY-CHANCE OIL REFINERY
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Minister of State for Mines, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board should know that, following an invitation to tender in January, 1985, six companies have posted $10,000 bonds to bid on the Come-by-Chance oil refinery. That invitation to tender has been submitted by Petro-Canada. Three of the companies that posted bands are in the business of dismantling refineries, and three are themselves refiners. Will the Minister confirm that Petro-Canada is in the final stages of concluding a deal with one of those six companies to dismantle the refinery and ship it out of Newfoundland?


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: My goodness, it is only Monday. Question, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that many Americans have said that there is such a linkage, and considering that the Government of Canada says there is no such linkage, will the Secretary of State for External Affairs do the honourable thing, produce the evidence by bringing any proposed agreement before the House of Commons so that people in this House and the people of Canada can actually see the agreement and make up their own minds?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons why I am no longer Prime Minister is that the Hon. Member for Oshawa, as Leader of the New Democratic Party, did what he always does when he has to face a tough decision. He runs and joins the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Joe, Joe!


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to take this question under notice and make sure that an answer is given.


REQUEST THAT SALE BE HALTED
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also take the following under notice and pass it along to his Cabinet colleagues? In view of the fact that there has never been a study done to determine the viability of that operation in Newfoundland, and in view of the fact that Clause 54 will wipe out Newfoundland's opportunity to have a petrochemical industry forever if that refinery closes, will the Minister and the Government agree to instruct Petro-Canada to freeze the sale of that Come-By-Chance oil refinery until such time as a viability or feasibility study has been carried out?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, again I will be happy to take the question under notice. As for the premises and hypotheses that are being tossed around, I will leave them up in the air. I will make sure that the Hon. Member gets an appropriate answer to the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, Perhaps the House will now let the Minister answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the question of the evidence being brought before a parliamentary committee, I remind the Leader of the New Democratic Party that I took the initiative which had not been taken by his friends and copains, the Liberal Party, for years, to put the North Warning System before a parliamentary committee. Members of his Party were there. Instead of asking questions of this kind, they asked about power generators in the north.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Secretary of State will recall that last week I asked the Prime Minister what he would be asking of President Reagan with respect to action on acid rain, and that at that time the Prime Minister refused to say what he would be saying to Mr. Reagan in this regard. In view of the action
2882

March 11, 1985
Oral Questions
taken by the Government on acid rain since the time I asked the question of the Prime Minister, I wonder if the House of Commons could not be told what the Prime Minister will be asking of President Reagan with respect to American action on acid rain when he meets with him in Quebec city.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member would want to have the House recall more precisely what the Prime Minister said. He said that if there were to be consultations with anyone prior to discussions with United States officials, he would probably choose someone other than the Hon. Member. The point that has to be made-


Mr. Deans:: That wasn't what he said. It's interesting, but that wasn't what he said.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: He was a little more definitive than I was.
We hope that the actions that have been taken under the very strong leadership of my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, to demonstrate our determination to move on the acid rain question, will allow Canada to go to those meetings with clean hands so that we can increase the influence of Canada's arguments in order to try to reach an agreement that will reduce the danger to Canadian and American lakes and livelihoods posed by the threat of acid rain.


CANADIAN POSITION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, given the former Prime Minister's occasional words about respect for Parliament and respect for Members of Parliament, I would have thought that he would have been the first to say that Members of Parliament have a right to know and ask about what position the Prime Minister will take.
May I ask the Secretary of State just what action the Government will be seeking from the Americans with respect to acid rain? Could I have the assurance that we will not simply agree to any kind of joint or mutual study of the problem? This would be to retreat from the position already taken by the Government that action is needed, and would involve conceding to the American view that more research rather than action is needed. Do we have the assurance that we will be seeking action and not mutal study?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a member of the committee studying parliamentary reform and procedures. It will be making reports to the House. A question that it may raise is whether or not treaties and agreements should be approved by the House in advance of their signing, and another question it may raise is the rather unusual proposal the Hon. Member is putting forward now, that before we go into an open negotiating procedure we should tell the people
with whom we are negotiating exactly what it is that we seek. I think that would very seriously undermine our negotiating stance, if not with the United States then certainly with other countries.
With regard to the acid rain question more particularly, the historic difference in views between Canada and the United States is clear. We believe there does not need to be more research. We believe there must be action taken. We believe that we can be persuasive in seeking action by taking action ourselves. My colleague, the Minister of the Environment, has shown leadership by having Canada take action. We hope that at the meeting between the President and the Prime Minister in Quebec city this weekend and next Monday, we will be able to get some solid progress against the threat of acid rain put into action.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence whom I would like to congratulate on his recent appointment. Today the Government announced measures regarding the strengthening of Canada's conventional commitment to NATO. Can the Minister advise the House of the implications of that announcement, and can he advise the House whether there will be any consideration of future augmentation to Canadian forces in Europe?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Government has taken two immediate initiatives with respect to a commitment made by the former Minister of National Defence at the NATO meeting last December. The first of these will involve increasing the number of our troops in Europe by 1,200 military personnel, in order to strengthen the Fourth Canadian Mechanized Brigade group based in Lahr. The second measure will be to designate specifically an infantry battalion group in Canada to fulfil our commitment to AMF land. Both of these commitments have been announced today to the ambassadors of the countries of NATO.
With these initial measures, we hope to increase the effectiveness and contribution of our Canadian forces in Europe. The objective, of course, is to meet fully our commitments to NATO, as we have often said we would do.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to my Hon. friend, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister knows that the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act on affirmative
March 11, 1985

action have no teeth and that they are essentially permissive rather than prescriptive or mandatory, except when a tribunal rules. The Minister knows that the Canadian Human Rights Commission cannot order affirmative action. Will the Minister, in the proposed employment equity legislation, assure that there is an obligation on the part of Crown corporations and federally regulated companies to have consistent employment equity programs?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, one of the reasons it has not been able to take action in the past with regard to inequities in employment was because it simply did not have the information available on which to initiate action. It has responded by following up on complaints. The measures that were announced the other day will make it mandatory for Crown corporations, firms doing business with the Government, and the federally regulated private sector, to file reports and returns giving the required information. If that information does not show that employment equity plans are being implemented and targets met, then the Canadian Human Rights Commission can take action on its own.


RESOURCES OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, the goal may be fixed, and it is a laudable one. However, without legal and financial clout it simply will not work. If the Minister believes that the Human Rights Commission will be able to measure that action, can she tell me if she has made provisions to give it the kind of financial and human resources it will require to meet all her very laudable expectations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her comments about these initiatives. I know they have received a great deal of support from women and minority groups across the country. I have already discussed this matter with the Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission and have assured him, if he feels he does not have sufficient resources, that he should come forward and put his request to the Government. I am sure that request will be received very sympathetically.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister assured me last Friday that employment equity would apply to female part-time workers as it would to full-time workers, but she completely ignored the recommendations of the Abella and Wallace reports
Oral Questions
regarding benefits and protections for part-time workers. Will the Minister guarantee that the recommended changes to the Canada Labour Code will be made so that part-time workers, who now have little job security, will at least have prorated benefits and protections?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not have responsibility for the Canada Labour Code. I am sympathetic to the point of view which the Hon. Member has put forward, and I will be glad to undertake ongoing discussions about this matter with the Minister of Labour.


EMPLOYMENT
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. What action will she take to counteract the anti-equity policies of Crown corporations, such as Air Canada, which wants to force women from full-time jobs into part-time work?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept that question. As of last Friday, we announced that there would be employment equity extended to Crown corporations. I trust that the Hon. Member will give them longer than a weekend to respond to that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


STEEL EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last fall the United States exempted Canada from import quotas on steel. The steel market, the jobs, the steel produced in Canada, and the primary producers are very important. Since that time there has been a fairly rapid increase in the amount of steel which is exported to the United States, some of which is due to fabricators bringing semi-finished steel into Canada and subsequently selling it to United States markets. Is the Minister considering establishing a system to monitor steel movement in Canadian and United States markets?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have no direct knowledge of any mnitoring which is taking place at the present time. Certainly in my Department there is no formal monitoring. Whether there is on the trade side I am not sure, but I will inquire for the Hon. Member.

March 11, 1985
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT MONITORING SYSTEM BE ESTABLISHED
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Minister that a tonne of steel which is produced by a primary producer in Canada creates about eight hours of work, but if it is fabricated it creates about one hour of work. Would the Minister look into the feasibility of establishing a monitoring system, such as the one in the United States, so that we can take action and, in the long run, protect the value of the United States markets, and also protect the Canadian jobs of our primary producers?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I said in answer to the Hon. Member's first question, I will certainly inquire if any such monitoring is presently done by the Government. If not, I will ask if it would be a desirable thing to do.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration.

The Government's response to the Abella Report as announced last Friday does not contain any specific reinforcement mechanisms. Considering that Judge Abella said in her report that voluntary programs did not produce the desired results, I would like to ask the following question: Is the Minister prepared to inform the House today that she will set up a reinforcement agency to ensure that inequities suffered by the four groups mentioned in the Abella Report will indeed be corrected?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has yet to understand the statement which was made on Friday. As I said at that time, it is not voluntary, it is mandatory. By legislation, companies will be required to report annually on their employment equity plans. By legislation, they will be asked to gather this material and put in data systems. Crown corporations will be required to submit the same information annually. Companies doing business with the Government will be required to submit their reporting on employment equity, and if they do not meet the goals which they set for themselves, they will lose the right to contract. That is not voluntary. That is mandatory.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ENFORCEMENT AGENCY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Minister understood the question. She spoke about the fact that it is now mandatory for them to report to Parliament. My question concerned an enforcement agency.
Judge Abella said in her report that there had to be an enforcement agency and that a voluntary method of reporting would not work. Can the Minister now announce that there will be some enforcement agency in order that there can be equality for the four groups which were mentioned in Judge Abella's report? Without that, it does not work.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, again the Hon. Member does not understand. In her comments, Judge Abella welcomed what the Government had done. I think she was surprised that we had moved so quickly and seriously in implementing the recommendations which she had made. Nevertheless, I would tell the Hon. Member that if he looked at the human rights legislation he would see that the Human Rights Commission can initiate action if it feels there are shortcomings as a result of this information being tabled in Parliament and being made public, so that it will have some basis on which to work. It has not had that up until now.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I will direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. I would like to ask him whether he supports the readiness which was expressed by his leader, as reported in Fortune magazine, namely, that he is prepared to sell Canada's supply of freshwater to the highest bidder, notwithstanding the warnings which were issued last summer by the federal water policy inquiry when it said that in parts of Canada we are already reaching the limits of supply.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have not read the article to which the Hon. Member refers.


NIAGARA RIVER POLLUTION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Well, Canadians will have to wait and see if they receive a clear signal from Cabinet.
Again, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, in relation to the meeting which will take place in Quebec city next Sunday and Monday, whether he will ensure that the serious matter of the Niagara River and Lake Ontario water deterioration, which will be placed in a basin where there are five million people who are likely to face water shortages in a decade or two if toxic contamination is not eliminated, will be on the agenda?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the matter raised by the Hon. Member and make every effort to ensure that it is given the appropriate consideration.
March 11, 1985


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. He will know that sugar beet growers in Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta are facing great uncertainty about the future of their industry, having watched their share of the domestic sugar market drop to something like 8 per cent. Does the Minister intend to keep the domestic sugar beet industry alive? If so, what actions will he propose to do that?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I share the Hon. Member's concern about the state of the sugar industry in Canada. Indeed, I hope to be in a position, possibly by the end of this week, to give some indication of what action the Government might take with respect to attempting to solve some of the problems which are currently being experienced by the people who are in that industry.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Will the Minister put forward at that time the precise eligibility requirement in any levels of support, if that is the direction in which he is going at that time, or will it simply be a broad outline of what he sees for the industry?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether I will be in a position to provide that much detail by the end of this week, but if so, yes. I caution the Hon. Member that I personally do not think that I will be in that position at least by the end of this week.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORT
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) on Friday, March 8, 1985, meets the requirement of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the unanimous consent of the House to waive the usual
The Senate
requirement of notice to introduce the following motion and have it listed under Motions:
Whereas the fundamental purpose of the Constitution of Canada is to protect the basic rights of Canadians in a free and democratic Canada;
Whereas Canadians adhere to the principle of democracy and desire that their legislative institutions be democratic;
Whereas democratic rights of Canadians are protected in the Constitution of Canada and have their clearest expression in the House of Commons and the provincial legislatures;
Whereas the Senate of Canada enjoys legislative powers, but exercises these powers without popular mandate;
Whereas the Senate of Canada is a product of an earlier period when democracy had not yet matured in Canada;
Whereas adoption of this resolution would continue to allow for the creation of new and democratic legislative institutions by the Government of Canada and the provinces of Canada;
This House urges the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces to act as expeditiously as possible to abolish the Senate of Canada.
This motion is seconded by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent) seeks, I take it, to place a matter under Motions by unanimous consent. The question is whether or not there is unanimous consent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of our Party that we are certainly prepared to give our consent to allow this motion to be debated provided that the debate will take place at a time when our Leader is able to be present and can speak on behalf of our Party.
I would also like to observe that it is my understanding that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will be attending the Chernenko state funeral in Moscow and will not be back in the House until Friday. I am sure that the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party, and perhaps all Hon. Members of the House, will agree that it is very important that the House and the country know the Prime Minister's views on this important question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Leader of the New Democratic Party just before Question Period and discussed with him the particular proposition he has put forward. At that time I pointed out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has spoken to each of the Premiers of our country with respect to the matter of Senate reform and that this process is required under our Constitution.
I pointed out as well to the Leader of the New Democratic Party that under those circumstances I thought he would be the last person who would want to take a position with respect to unilateral action while this important consultation is taking place. Accordingly, I told him that when we complete the negotiations and discussions with the provinces, we would be approaching the Leaders of the other Parties with respect to an appropriate resolution which would reflect the consensus in our country. That is the kind of government we provide, a

March 11, 1985
Commonwealth Day
government of consensus and consultation. Accordingly, I am not prepared to agree to the proposal put forward today.
Some Hon. Mfembers: Oh, oh!


COMMONWEALTH DAY
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, today Canada and other Commonwealth countries encircling the globe are observing Commonwealth Day. It was a Canadian proposal made ten years ago at the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in Jamaica that one day should be set aside each year to mark our membership in this singular organization. The second Monday in March was chosen not to be a holiday but to be an occasion when most children would be in school and could participate in special projects to increase their understanding of the Commonwealth. Its continued vitality depends upon the interest and involvement of all of our citizens, but particularly of younger Canadians.

The United Nations has declared this year the International Year of Youth. The Commonwealth countries are planning to organize a number of special events, the main one being a gathering of young people from all Commonwealth countries who will be coming to Ottawa in June to discuss the challenges of the 80s.
The number of Commonwealth bursaries offered by Canada has been raised from 300 to 500. Since the program was established in 1959, when it was first suggested by the Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time, Mr. Sidney Smith, more than 20,000 Commonwealth students have been able to benefit from these bursaries.
Canada remains convinced that this program and other training programs are useful because our country sees the youth of the Commonwealth countries as a guarantee that the Commonwealth will remain in the same excellent condition it is now.

We live in an age, Sir, of hardening ideologies, of increasing economic disparities and growing cultural nationalism, yet the Commonwealth association cuts across all of these barriers. Its 49 members represent every geographical, political, economic and social group in the world. Nevertheless, it has many things in common; a shared working language, the heritage of common law and parliamentary traditions and, most importantly, the tradition of a frank and pragmatic approach to problem solving. The latter part of this century has been called the "era of negotiation" but it is witnessing a crisis in the world's multilateral system. We believe that the Commonwealth, with its special qualities, can be an example to other international bodies.
With this in mind, it is fitting, Mr. Speaker, that we commemorate this unique family of nations and reaffirm Canada's commitment to the future of the Commonwealth.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in stressing the importance of this anniversary for Canada.

As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, the Commonwealth is a very unusual association. In that organization are people of different cultures, different languages and different political orientations; yet when we meet at the conferences there is a sense of fraternity which is very useful. It is another forum where we can play a different role.
I am glad to hear the Right Hon. Minister speak about the Commonwealth as a valid proposition because Canada should not think only in terms of being more or less the fifty-first state of America. I just want to use this occasion to remind the Minister that it was not very pleasant the other day in London when, at the same time as the Commonwealth was toasted, one of the Ministers toasted the United States of America, and this was done in front of British guests. I believe the Commonwealth is something we belong to. We must make sure that we keep our position in the world and not become more and more close to the United States, losing our traditions such as our association with the Commonwealth and with the francophone countries. We must make sure that Canada keeps its proper and definitive role internationally.
I am glad that the Hon. Minister took this occasion to talk about this organization which extends to some students of the Commonwealth the opportunity to come into Canada and to learn here. That is not only good for them, it is good for us, because when they go back to their respective countries they are in a position to know more about Canada. Very often they become leaders of these nations and this helps very much to establish political, social and economic links with Canada.
I am glad the Right Hon. Minister took this occasion to make a statement. It is very rare that we have statements in the House. The Minister had a private press conference at 1.30 in his Department today relating to important commitments on national defence. Making this announcement outside of the House did not give us an opportunity to comment on the Government spending another $100 million on national defence in Europe. I find it very awkward that the very day negotiations on disarmament are starting the Minister announces a greater contribution to defence in Europe. I think that when people start to talk about disarmament it is not the time to announce an increase in our contribution to armaments. But that will be for another occasion. I just want to tell the Hon. Minister that we would have liked to have an announcement in the House on national defence and external affairs too.
March 11, 1985

In closing, I am glad to talk about the Commonwealth. 1 had many experiences with this good association. My first international meeting was a Commonwealth meeting; but this question of national defence might well have been discussed in the House of Commons, too.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, we in the New Democratic Party join with others in the observance of Commonwealth Day. We are pleased to note that Canada has increased the number of scholarships from 300 to 500 for Commonwealth students. We, too, would have to say there is nothing particularly controversial about our recognition of Commonwealth Day, and while I welcome the Minister making statements in the House, as I have done before, I hope he will also make statements on somewhat more controversial matters, such as the proposed signing of a treaty with the United States relating to the northern warning system. I hope he will be encouraged to make statements on matters not only of fundamental importance but also of some real controversy. No matter how much we may try to slough it off, this matter is of great concern and the subject of controversy in Canada.
May I ask the Minister if there are other initiatives relating to the Commonwealth which he has in mind? For example, does he think it might be useful to follow up the New Delhi Summit, and perhaps he already has, of a year or so ago?


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, is the Hon. Member's statement Finished and we are now embarking on a question? Should I understand it to be that way? Does she wish this to be treated as questions to the Minister?


Pauline Jewett: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you.


Pauline Jewett: Would the Minister see Canada playing a larger role in the Commonwealth Pacific? Many of the island nations are only now emerging into a decolonization situation; does he see our playing a large role in the Commonwealth Pacific?
Does he not feel that at this time he might have addressed more the North-South issue? We have tended to forget that a bit. Many of the Commonwealth countries are, of course, developing nations. Would the Minister not soon be prepared to reinstate the $180 million which was removed from official development assistance and, indeed, increase that amount? Is that not as important as spending an additional $100 million on our troops in Europe?
Finally, does the Minister have any knowledge as to whether Radio-Canada International is going to suffer cuts within the CBC? If so, would he-


Mr. Speaker:: I am forced to rise for two reasons. One, there are a large number of questions; two, the questions must be relevant to the statement made by the Minister. At least one or two of the Member's questions were directly relevant, but I am not sure about the others.
Commonwealth Day


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in light of the lati-tute of the responses by my two friends on the other side, I might be permitted to say how pleased I am to note the new-found interest by the spokesman of the Liberal Party in Statements by Ministers in the House of Commons. I also accept the observations made by my colleague representing the New Democratic Party.
With regard to the Commonwealth, our first emphasis- because the issue arose there First-has been to try and bring some new vitality to relations between Canada and some of the Commonwealth members in the Caribbean area. We were pleased at the tone and the possibility of progress found when the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) met with Caribbean Commonwealth Prime Ministers. There is, of course, a very significant job to be done in the Commmon-wealth Pacific. I think it is an open question as to whether it is more appropriate for Canada or other Commonwealth countries with similar wealth to take a role of leadership in that region. That is an indication of my current attitude and I would be very pleased to discuss that with the Hon. Member and others.
I do not want this to be taken in any way as criticism of former Governments, but it seems to me that one of the aspects about the Commonwealth that we should bear in mind is precisely that it is so easy to take it for granted. I think there is some real advantage to having a day like this on which we can draw attention to an organization which has very real opportunities open to us, including reaching across lines which have traditionally been defined as North-South. Those do not always arise just in economic spheres. They arise, for example, with regard to the present crisis in UNESCO. It occurs to me that there may well be some opportunity to make better use of the Commonwealth connection in trying to bring progress and achieve real reforms in an organization of that kind.
With regard to overseas development assistance, I am not here to argue figures with the Hon. Member, as I seem to have to do with every statement I make at this time. There were reductions in the summer of last year by the former Government, some of which were reinstated. There was a statement made by my colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in November. There has been very significant spending on the fund for Africa, as the Hon. Member knows because she has encouraged us on it. I share her commitment to increasing Canada's activity in overseas development assistance; I think the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) shares that same commitment, and I will be looking for their help in years ahead to ensure that we are able to reflect that commitment in reality.


Mr. Speaker:: I have time for one more question.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I expect the Minister will also comment on the New Delhi peace initiative.
My final question goes back to the scholarships for Commonwealth students. Would the Minister consider a grant system to compensate for the increased tuition fees now being

March 11, 1985
Petitions
levied on Commonwealth students, as distinct from the scholarship system?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to look at that approach but I am not convinced it is the best way to deal with the difficult problem relating to tuition fees; not simply in relation to Commonwealth scholars but others as well.
With regard to New Delhi, there is no specific initiative which is planned at this moment by way of the Commonwealth.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow one more question given the shortness of that last question and answer.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, we on this side obviously welcome the increase in the number of scholarships and we welcome the Minister's statement on Commonwealth Day.
I would like him to comment with regard to the question of the cuts in aid the Government has undertaken and the consultations it is carrying on regarding our aid policy, particularly as it reflects the notion of tied aid. The document on consultation seems to proposed that aid should be tied to economic benefits for Canada. In order to demonstrate the depth of his commitment to development generally and in Commonwealth countries in particular, can he comment on the suggestion that aid should be tied rather than using the more effective route, which is to have aid which meets the priorities of the country receiving it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that it is appropriate for me, on Motions, to comment on aspects of consultation papers which are in circulation. Let me say that, in addition to the consultation papers that are now in circulation, there will be at least two parliamentary opportunities, of which I hope full advantage will be taken, to discuss fully the question raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper). One will be when the Estimates of CIDA come before the standing committee. The other will be when the green paper, which I am preparing as a basis for the first public parliamentary discussion of international policy in our history, is available to Parliament.


PETITIONS
David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition on behalf of several hundred civilian employees of the Department of National Defence in the Ottawa-Carleton area. Approximately 2,200 members of the Department located at various locations in the city of Ottawa are scheduled to be relocated to the outskirts of Hull in the near future.
The petitioners are suggesting that insufficient attention has been paid by the appropriate authorities to the cost of this move and the effect on efficiency and employee morale, and ask that the House ask the appropriate officials to reconsider this move.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 39 and 131.


Mr. Howie: Did the Government undertake, or has it initiated in the current fiscal year, any studies relating to the effect of computer crime or measures to combat it and, if so (a) were these studies carried out by outside consultants (b) in what time frame were the studies to be conducted (c) was any amount allocated to the studies and, if so, what amount?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice):: In 1984, two bills containing proposed amendments to protect the integrity of computer systems were introduced in the House of Commons; Bill C-19 the proposed Criminal Law Reform Act, 1984, on February 7, 1984, and Bill C-18, the proposed Criminal Law Reform Act, 1984, on December 19, 1984. Following the tabling of both bills, consultations were held by the Department of Justice and public inquiries were received concerning these proposals. Costs were assumed within the normal fiscal and person-year allocations of the Department of Justice.
Following a recommendation of the Parliamentary Report of the Subcommittee on Computer Crime, June, 1983, a federal-provincial study on the legal protection of trade secrets and commercial information was initiated in February, 1984 to determine the type of legal protection that should be afforded in this area. Canada and the Provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan are represented on the study, which is being chaired by the Province of Alberta. The study is to deliver its interim report at the next meeting of Deputy Attorneys General responsible for criminal justice. Costs at the federal level were assumed within normal fiscal and person-year allocations, except for the payment of $8,189.20 to an outside contractor for the preparation of a research report and consultative services on the criminal misappropriation of trade secrets. The report was prepared between June 4 to August 31, 1984 and a consultation occurred on November 19-21, 1984.
March 11, 1985


Mr. Boudria: Since September 17, 1984, have any cars been leased or rented by the Government for the use of Cabinet Ministers and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the name or names of the companies providing cars (c) in each case, what is the make, year, model and price?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: (a), (b) and (c): The Table below lists 17 cars rented or leased by the Government for the use of Cabinet Ministers. Leasing arrangements may vary from one day to four years.
Company	Make	Year	Model	PriceBuillol ct Fils Lice	Chrysler	1985	New Yorker	$19,200.60Budget Rcnl-a-Car System	Pontiac	1985	Parisienne	3,240.00Mercury	1984	Lincoln Town	115.45Chevrolet	1984	Caprice Sedan	696.50Chevrolet	1984	Caprice	1,043.00Plymouth	1984	Reliant	33.37Oldsmobile	1984	Delta 88	46.84Hertz Rent-a-Car	Pontiac	1984	Parisienne	45.91Pontiac	1984	Parisienne	45.91Pontiac	1983	Parisienne	59.79Mont-Bleu Ford Inc.	Ford	1984	Crown Victoria	400.00Myers Leasing Service	Chevrolet	1984	Caprice	324.95Ottawa Car Rentals	Chevrolet	1984	Caprice	1,929.49Surgenor National Leasing Ltd.	Pontiac	1984	Parisienne Sedan	516.00Pontiac	1984	Parisienne	1,231.52Pontiac	1984	Parisienne	1.073.04Turpin Pontiac Buick	Pontiac *	1984  *	Bonneville	307.50


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 212.
*


Mr. Hopkins: What are the names and job designations of all the employees who are presently on the staff of the Minister of National Defence, including any seconded and exempt personnel from the Department of National Defence?


Mr. Robert Wenman (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, Starred Question No. 212 deals with the staff of the former Minister of National Defence and contains nearly 30 names and job designations. I request that this response be printed in Hansard as read.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the response be printed in Hansard as read?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: The answer is as follows:]
Exempt Staff
Mr. Richard B. Logan Mrs. Debbie Wright Mr. Paul L. Dunn Mr. Michael McSweeney Mr. Geoffrey Matthews Mr. Stephen G. Roman Mr. Darryl Harker
Designation
Chief of Staff Special Assistant Senior Policy Advisor Special Assistant Press Secretary Special Assistant-Policy Special Assistant
Fisheries Act
Designation
Department
(Public Servants)
Miss Micheline Sigouin Miss Madeleine Pare Miss Claudette Rice
Miss Micheline Hudon Miss Anne Fisher
Mrs. Yolande Willis Miss Cecile Hebert Mrs. Louise Patenaude Mrs. Sharon Bazinet Miss Helene Poirier Mrs. Marie-Paule Lafontaine
Mrs. Cecile Lamoureux Miss Lynne Granger Miss Manon Giroux Mrs. Gilberte Lauzon Miss Helene Bourguignon Miss Monique Morin Miss Nicole Benson Miss Carole Dubuc Miss Helene Liberty Miss Jacqueline Newberry Mr. E. A. Davis
Administrative Assistant Secretary to Chief of Staff Secretary to Administrative Assistant
Secretary to Special Assistant Secretary to Senior Policy Advisor
Secretary to Press Secretary
Receptionist
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Secretary
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk
Clerk


John B. Stewart: I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Do I have a couple of minutes left in my speaking time?


Mr. Speaker:: I am advised by the Table that the Member's time for debate has expired but the period for questions and comments has not expired. The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has a question arising from the speech of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper).


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech made by the Hon. Member. He took exception to the intent in the part of the Bill that dealt with the authority of the Minister and fishery officers to make on-the-spot decisions relating to the opening and closing of seasons, if I interpreted his remarks correctly.
Why does he take such exception to those powers that will be given under this Bill, when those powers will be needed in certain circumstances locally and regionally by fisheries officers? They will be able to make value judgments on the spot as they relate to allocations to various sectors of the fishing industry. Would he expand on his objection to new powers being granted to the Minister and to departmental officials according to the Bill?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question because if I left that impression, of course it is wrong. The Hon. Member has given me the opportunity to clarify what I said.
In no way was I objecting to the granting of authority to local officials to make on-the-spot decisions. I can imagine circumstances when that authority may be necessary. I was attempting to point out that we do not know how the Government intends to use the legislative authority it is seeking from us today. If the Hon. Member knows what the Government intends to do and would share that with us, I would be pleased to comment on the Government's policy.
Our Party is concerned about the unfettered and absolute authority to regulate the fishery which the Government is requesting in this legislation. We understand that there is a need for regulation of the fishery and that there must be local authority for fisheries officers, but we have not been told how much authority will be delegated to local fishery officers and how it will be used.
Furthermore, the Government is seeking this legislative authority, yet it has not given any details with respect to guidelines by which the Department will have to operate, or laid out any plans for management of the fishery resource. Is the Government considering some kind of co-management structure and, if so, what is it? Will there be a mechanism to allow adequate representations from those involved in the fishery? We recognize the need for authority at both the departmental and local levels, but will that authority be limited, will the officials be accountable and to whom? We want to have this information before the legislation is passed. We believe that the departmental officials should know what the rules and guidelines will be before the legislation is passed.
We do not want to give the Government unspecified authority when its record has been one of flip-flopping on its election promises and government action.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the immediate problem facing the Department of Fisheries is that, according to a judicial interpretation, it is not legal for the Department to allocate the resource according to the users. Does the hon. gentleman believe that that part of the legislation must be passed by this Chamber before the season starts in the spring, particularly in B.C. but certainly on the East Coast as well, so that the federal Government can have this power which deals with socio-economic problems and not so much as it pertains to conservation and protection? Does the Minister need the power? If he does not need the power requested under the Bill, then certainly I would agree with the hon. gentleman's sweeping statement. But let me ask him specifically, does the Minister deserve to have the power to regulate the fishery and regulate the fish to user groups, power which he presently does not have and which has been, according to the justice of the court, illegal all along for the Minister to do?


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member appeared to be shifting his question as he went along. I will start out with what 1 thought was the question in the first place. It seemed to be: what is the immediate need for legislation granting authority to the Government to regulate the fishing industry?
We are not saying there is not any need for legislation. We would be glad to sit down right now with the Government to have the Government spell out exactly what kind of authority it needs to do what precisely. There are a lot of fishermen who want to know what the Government has in mind for them.
The Hon. Member who asked the question is obviously very conversant with the fishery and speaks out well on its behalf. I can understand why he is asking these questions. Even if the case could be made for immediate action, that does not mean it has to be thoughtless action, unexamined action, or unconsidered action. If we were to act without thought and without all of the facts before us, the other place might call us up short.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Its Members might say that this is the time for sober second thought.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: Who knows, Mr. Speaker? I do not want to give any provocation to the other place; with as much respect as I have for it, I do not want to give any excuse for its Members to be pouring over legislation of this democratic Chamber, to be looking at it, examining it, and asking, "How can we improve it? The House of Commons has acted without full consideration of the facts and we will put a stop to this". We cannot have an undemocratic body continuing to play that role.
March 11, 1985

If there is need for immediate action, then I think we could do what the American Congress does. When it has need for immediate action and it does not have agreement among legislators about what the action will be, members get together to forumlate an agreement. They have a conference. Perhaps this is the time to have a conference. This Government promises co-operative government. It promises consultation. It intends to be open. If we need immediate action, we would be prepared in this Party to sit down immediately and talk about what plan this Government has in mind for the fisheries and get it all spelled out. Therefore, when the Government comes before this House seeking authority, the authority is defined, limited and accountable and the people in the fishery will know what kind of Government regulation they will have to face. They will know whether they will be able to make a living, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We shall now resume debate. The period of questions and comments has terminated. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, we are talking today about one of the primary industries in this country. Within that category it is very important that we have the kind of legislation that allows those primary industries to develop in a way that the people who work in those industries want it to develop. It is important, therefore, that the Government take the kind of responsibility which allows it to put in place a structure which will not allow these industries to degenerate and to become less effective and less productive.
The industries I am talking about include the farm industry, the forest industry, and the fishing industry. I suppose one could throw the mining industry in there too as a primary production industry, except that the mining industry deals with a non-renewable resource. The other three can be considered to be producing products from resources that are renewable, although l am sure 1 would get into a considerable amount of argument with a number of people about the renewability of farm land. Basically what we are talking about here are primary industries and the kind of legislation that we need in place to make sure that the primary industries can produce the way they want to produce.
We have a case for concern. I know we are talking specifically about the fisheries, but we have a case for concern. Under the responsibility of the Liberal Government, which has been our Government for the past 16 to 20 years, it has allowed the degeneration of these primary industries in such a way that we are now faced with considerable amounts of trouble in each industry.
The farming industry is having trouble, the forest industry is having trouble, and today we have been talking about the fisheries and its trouble. It has become a kind of ongoing feeling on the part of these communities, the farming, the fishing and forest communities, to recognize that they are a long way from Ottawa, that Ottawa is pretty insensitive to their basic problems, and that they cannot expect the kind of
Fisheries Act
legislation and understanding from Ottawa that would be relative to their importance in Canada's economy.
I think it is important to note that farming and fishing particularly are industries which are carried on in most cases by families and by whole communities. If we are going to keep the kind of traditional independence on the part of communities and families, we should make it possible, as far as we can, for these industries to be kept producing, allowing them to increase production and making them viable once more as part of the economy of Canada. That is something we have lost over the last two years. We have lost the primary industries as part of the viable structure of the economy of Canada.
We are talking today about the fisheries industry, which is not a minor industry. It could be a much greater industry. It is not a minor industry because if you take the structure of it, it has provided well over 100,000 direct jobs across the nation for fishers and plant workers and the other people who work in and around the fishing industry. These people produce 1.3 million tonnes of fish in 1983, valued at $874 million. Aside from those figures, they have derived products valued at $2.1 billion and an export value of $1.6 billion. We are not talking about a small industry or about a very few people. On both coasts of Canada there are fishing fleets comprised of 42,000 private fishing crafts.
Let us take a look at the particular communities affected, in particular in Newfoundland and along the East Coast. There are 1,300 communities which are entirely dependent upon the fishing industry. Consequently, we should have legislation in place which protects that industry as much as possible. The industry on the West Coast may not be as large. There are not as many communities directly affected by it. However there are 17,000 commerical fishers and approximately 500,000 people who are sports or recreational fishers. They provide a lot of indirect employment to people in the tourist industry. It is very important that what we discuss in the House in terms of the fishing industry take into account what is good for the industry, for the people and for the survival of the fishery.
The reason this Bill is before us is that the previous Government did a bad job in terms of husbandry in the fishery over the years. Consequently there is a shortage of fish and a problem with allocation of the fisheries. We needed this Bill to provide the Minister with what he thought was a proper amount of control. To a certain extent we agree, but we differ on the kind of control and who should have it. This is why we are suggesting a number of changes before the Bill goes to committee.
The Bill itself contains a number of very beautiful words. Aside from conservation and protection of fish and the waters frequented by fish, the purpose of the Act is "to provide for the proper management, allocation and control of the seacoast fisheries of Canada; to ensure a continuing supply of fish and to maintain and develop the economic and social benefits from the use of fish to fishermen and others employed in the Canadian seacoast fishing industry, to others whose livelihood

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
depends in whole or in part on seacoast fishing and to the people of Canada;" and so on. These are very beautiful words, but we have learned that these kinds of words are very easily forgotten. If we look at the words in the preamble to many Bills passed in the House, we find that, regardless of the beautiful words and statements of purpose, five years or even less down the road their purpose has been forgotten.
With the record of broken promises and mistrust before the fishers of Canada, is it any wonder they ask us to ensure that this Bill gives them the input they want? Sometimes what is written in a Bill has no real bearing on what happens in the industry. This is why members of my Party have risen and asked the Minister for an assurance that he will not put in place an over-all structure which would allow him to do anything he pleases without defining under what circumstances he will use the power.
We hope to bring forward in committee the fact that we would like to see a structure which is close to what the fishers are requesting. We cannot be sure that the beautiful words in this Bill will necessarily be the words the bureaucrats remember. They are more likely to remember the fact that the Bill gave them absolute power to do whatever they wanted or that it did not suggest that they had some responsibility for the social development of fishing communities. It is very important as this Bill approaches committee that we look at some of the background and basic principles which are important.
All the users of the resource-natives, commercial and sports fishers-have a right to share the resource. The Bill gives the Minister the absolute right of allocation. Should he have that right without any direction from the House?
Commercial fishers should have the right to a fair and decent income for their labour. That sounds very good within the context of the Bill, but we must have an assurance that we do not follow the more common position taken by the United States-"let us fish this out and when all the fish are gone, we will move some place else and fish it out." We want a continued development of a fisheries program so that we always have fish.
Natives, particularly those along the West Coast, have special traditional rights to the resource and its use in furthering the economic development of their communities. Across Canada many native communities depend upon fish as a basic food staple and as a cash crop, as farmers say. Fish were their main source of income, their main source of cash. Because of mismanagement, overfishing, pollution and a number of other things, they now find themselves without enough fish to eat and without fish to sell. The quality has gone down in some places, the quantity has gone down in many places.
The final principle is that protection and enhancement of the resource is paramount and must take priority in all deliberations. This follows what I said earlier. If we are to have a structure in place, it must recognize the needs of the industry. We are parliamentarians and the industry itself must be assured that it has an input into the programs and that they are continued, not only this year and next year, but for generations to come.
What is wrong with the approach of this Bill? The Minister suggests that this Bill is not all that important, but it gives him authority to control the fishing industry. Maybe it is the words he used that concern us. He suggested that because the Department of Fisheries was taken to court on several occasions and lost its bid, it should have this power. We are being asked to give the Department absolute power to make the kind of decisions that will control the industry.
A number of my colleagues have suggested that we recognize the need for control and redevelopment. We will support that, but it must be acceptable to the people. I suggest we put in place a board made up of people from the commercial fishery, natives, the packers and communities that depend on fish. We should give that board the kind of power and structure to make decisions on continued development and on how the fisheries will be used today. It should decide on how the Fisheries will provide stock for the next hundreds of years. These are the people whose families are dependent on them now and in the years to come.
Let us deal with the question of resources. We should develop a structure which allows the people to provide this kind of food to the rest of the country and the rest of the world. We should ensure that we no longer have famines such as presently exist around the world. Canada should make a contribution to humanity within a structure that helps the Canadian fishing community feel that it is an important part of the community, an important part of the economy of Canada and will continue to be so for many years.


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


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my question to my colleague has to do with the native fishery and aboriginal rights. The Party in office promised greater participation for native groups. The power it is seeking today has to do with the allocation of the fishery. This will affect resources at the disposal of native people involved in the fishery. Having examined the legislation, does my friend find any guarantees for aboriginal rights? Is there any protection in this legislation that would ensure that the traditional native fishery would be respected?
We are dealing with a piece of legislation that has to do with the regulation of a natural resource. I ask my friend to look at it from the perspective of native people, the aboriginal people's point of view, those who are struggling to have their rights respected and defined. Does he find in this legislation any provisions which would ensure the protection of aboriginal rights? Does he feel that this is a legitimate concern that should be dealt with by this House before this legislation moves forward?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, to be fair to the Minister, I have to say that he did not say that this Bill would take care of the need that is there. If you look closely at the legislation, a native fisher may be a little worried, knowing the track record of the Department of Fisheries, the previous Government and
March 11, 1985

Governments as a whole toward the native community. I would be a little suspicious that maybe there are parts of this Bill which might give the Government authority to further disintegrate native rights, particularly in communities along the West Coast. That is one area that might be handled by a board which has representation from the native community. It would have the power to worry about conservation, future supply, something that has not been worried about in the past.
Many people blame the native community for overfishing. The Department of Fisheries has not in the past given natives the kind of security whereby if they do a good job of conservation in their area, someone else will not fish them out. That is not taken care of in this Bill.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Hon. Member with regard to this legislation. The legislation purports to seek authority to regulate the fishery in order to conserve a natural resource and, therefore, is obviously worthwhile and seeks a public benefit. Can the Hon. Member tell me whether it is possible under this legislation for the Minister to exclude from the fishery, for example, sports fishermen, commercial fishermen or native fishermen? This Bill seeks authority to allocate the fishery among various user groups, which includes at least sports, commercial and native groups.
It may not be likely, but is it possible under this legislation that the Government could say that in order to conserve the resource and meet the main objective, it will not allow any more sports fishery? As the legislation is written, is it possible for the Government to say to native people, "We would like to allow you to continue to fish, but we have to conserve the stock, so we are not going to allow you to fish any more"? Is it possible under this legislation, which allows the Government absolute authority to allocate the fishery, for the Government to say to commercial fishermen, "You will have to find another way to make your living. I am sorry, we have to conserve the fishery"? I would like to know just how much authority the Government is seeking under this legislation and whether or not the Hon. Member feels that this is a good idea.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I think I can best answer that by quoting directly from the Bill itself. Clause 2.1 reads in part as follows:
The purposes of this Act are-
(b) to provide for the proper management, allocation and control of the seacoast fisheries of Canada;-
(d) to provide, in cooperation with the provinces, for the proper management, allocation and control of the inland fisheries of Canada.
We do not have the entire Bill before us and there are some restricting factors. Clause 3 describes another amendment to be made to the Act and makes the following substitution:
(m) authorizing a person engaged or employed in the administration or enforcement of this Act to vary, in respect of any area or portion thereof, any close time, fishing quota or limit on the size or weight of fish that has been fixed by the regulations.
Therefore, if that is interpreted in the light of the over-all control that is being asked for by the Minister, it means that
Fisheries Act
the Minister can say at any time that a fisherman's quota for this year is one fish. He could therefore close down a particular part of the industry through that kind of allocation. That is why we need to have some kind of a board which has some input into how the Minister makes his decisions and what kind of decisions he makes.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman whether or not he and members of his Party have any thoughts on how to overcome the existing regulations and powers of the Minister. Obviously the Minister has powers for conservation and protection. I would make specific reference to regulations that were brought in over the years indicating that incidental by-catches are not permitted by law. In other words, if a fisherman put out a net and the intent of that net was to catch cod fish and he accidentally caught a salmon, according to recent regulations made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, that fisherman must throw back that salmon if he does not have a salmon licence. The intent of the regulation is that if the salmon is alive, the fisherman will throw it back. However, by Canadian law, an incidental catch of salmon by a person who does not have a salmon licence must be thrown overboard, whether it is dead or not. One cannot keep it even for one's own consumption; it must be thrown overboard.
There is an incredible incidental catch in various sections of the country, particularly with regard to salmon, because the salmon normally follow the coastline fairly high up in the water and usually get caught in leaders of gillnets. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would have any suggestions regarding how to overcome that particular problem or how to stop a Minister from making an absolutely ridiculous regulation, something which has happened.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, incidental catches in the process of fishing create a difficult situation. However, what we are worried about in this Bill is not those incidental catches but the absolute power given to the Minister to allocate fish stocks and to say who catches the fish, how much can be caught and when it can be caught. The absolute power that is given to the Minister is the problem we are having with this Bill, not those incidental catches, with which it is difficult to deal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Resuming debate. [Translation]


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my comments to the debate, especially as it concerns the people involved in this sector.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an industry, and although I come from an urban riding, and even if I am not directly involved, I am very much aware of the fact that there are 200,000 people in Canada who are involved at the commercial level, and all regulations and amendments to existing legislation will have some impact on the daily lives of these

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
people. Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that we must examine this industry more closely.

My concern is perhaps related to the fact that I am also a housewife, a mother and a person who is looking at this Bill from the perspective of an amateur sports fishing enthusiast. I am concerned about how this Bill will impact on those like myself. I do not pretend to be any kind of an expert in the field of fishing nor do I know as much about it as I would like to know. I do know that fish costs an awful lot of money in the store; yet fishing does not bring that kind of income to the fisherpersons-and I use that word advisedly because I will come to it in a moment-who are involved in the industry.
First I would like to know if we are dealing with a shortage and if that is the reason why the costs are so high. If we are dealing with high costs, it is because we have not implemented the kind of husbandry programs which would be necessary to ensure the stock in an ongoing way for future generations?
As a sports fisherperson, I went salmon fishing in a very beautiful part of New Brunswick. We were fishing in one of its famous salmon holes. After we went fishing, I spoke to some people who were on the shore discussing the problems surrounding the lobster fishery. I mentioned that I was as interested in eating lobster as I was in catching and eating salmon. The gentleman with whom I was conversing said, "Well, you had better eat those lobsters now because there will not be any in the near future". I asked him what he meant by that. He said, "Well, lady, do you know that they are allowed to catch either male or female lobsters and that they catch female lobsters when they are ready to lay their eggs?" As a result of the overfishing in the lobster fishery, we will not have lobster any longer and we will not have the joy of eating that delectable food. I felt that what 1 learned that day was very interesting and I added it to my list of concerns.
My concern regards the approach taken to proper conservation of lobster, and I am sure it relates to other fish, both in fresh and in salt water. I would hope that the Minister who will be getting some control over the fishery will exercise good judgment when it comes to protecting this resource for the future.
Another time, I was in northern Quebec fishing for pike and walleye. That experience was a great deal of fun. By chance we came across some Indian people who were fishing for sturgeon. My husband was quite intrigued by the method by which they caught this sturgeon. I do not know if you are aware of the way one fishes for sturgeon, Mr. Speaker, but one uses these long, hook-like things which go along the ground because sturgeons eat from underneath their gullets. The restrictions on the right to fish for sturgeon was not explained to us at that time. The next time we went fishing, my husband brought along one of these special fishing lines that are used to catch sturgeon. We wanted to catch some sturgeon because we had been given a gift of a sturgeon by the Indian we met in the area. We had taken it home and had it smoked and it was utterly delectable.
So, back we went on our next fishing trip, all prepared to catch our own sturgeon. At that time, the local warden came over and told my husband that he was contravening the law and that we, as non-aboriginal peoples, had no right to catch sturgeon. He told us that if we did not put away this particular form of fishing tackle our car would be impounded. This brings me to ask a question with respect to the kinds of regulations that the Minister will have at his disposal. Will the Minister be allowed to issue a regulation that will change the normal traditional rights of aboriginal people? Will they no longer have the exclusive right to catch sturgeon? In terms of custom within their own land and waters, I do not think that would be particularly to their liking. I wonder if there will be consultation in that regard, or if the Minister will use his discretionary powers in a non-discretionary way.
I would like to talk about another point which has caused me some concern. Under this new legislation with the right to issue certain regulations, will the Minister have the right to determine who is a fisherman? He will have the right to determine what is a fish when it is on the land, whether it is gutted, skinned, headed or todded but I would like to know if the Minister will have the right to determine who is a fisherperson. I use the term "fisherperson" quite deliberately. I do not know how many people are aware of the fact that a man, his wife and children may be in a boat fishing together, but if the man, his wife and children apply for unemployment insurance benefits, they have to be careful what the names of the children are and what the name of his wife is. If the wife's name is Sam, or any name which sounds like a male name, she will get unemployment insurance payments without question. However, if he is named June, Joan, or any other commonly known female name, her right to unemployment insurance benefits is questioned. The same is true for children.
I had a very interesting experience in 1978 when attending a meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. There were some women from Newfoundland at that meeting who came to ask for equal rights as partners in the fishing industry. With all due respect to my friends from Newfoundland, I did not completely understand the language which was being used concerning the greening of the fish and everything else. However, I learned to my absolute horror that these women, Frankie, Jackie and John, had a different kind of right to pay, depending upon the Government's interpretation of their names. The name gave them the sex and the right or the lack of right to receive unemployment insurance benefits. I think discrimination against fisherpersons is unacceptable. I do not particularly want to change the term from fisherman to fisherwoman, but if that is what we have to do in order to receive proper payment, then we will do that.
It concerns me that the legislation points to sports commercial and native fishing groups and the difference in those user groups. I have travelled along the banks and shores of the coastal waters in the East and have visited small communities. The Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) told us that there were 1,300 small communities along the coastline. It
March 11, 1985

seemed to me that there were hundreds, but I cannot account for 1,300. However, to avoid interference in what had previously been provincial rights, and to avoid causing federal-provincial concerns, I hope the Minister will be very cautious in writing up his new rules and regulations.
No one should have absolute power, because absolute power corrupts. I believe that when the Minister acts, it will be with limited and accountable powers. They would only be the norm and the expectation of House of Parliament in Canada. That is what I expect from the Minister when he studies this Bill.
What is good for the people I hope will be considered in the Bill and will be considered very carefully in the regulations. The Government has undertaken a few measures which make me rather sceptical. I hope this is a Minister of goodwill who has not only thought of cuts, but who has thought of consultation with the people who will be affected by the Bill. Giving the Minister ministerial control, with responsible controls and proper dialogue with all parties concerned on the federal-provincial level, I hope is what is behind the initiatives of this Bill. A British Columbia Supreme Court judge may well have ruled, and the Minister has come down with a Bill to try to redress that decision. I hope great care and caution will be taken.
Earlier I discussed the idea of husbandry and conservation. I believe that to be key, because if that is done, when I go back to being a housewife and a consumer in an urban area, perhaps, eventually, the cost of my food basket will decrease because the careful monitoring and developing of our fish stock will result in an abundance of stock which will be provided at a lower cost.


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


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member for outlining the outright discrimination against women as it relates to the fishery and unemployment insurance benefits. I do not know if I would go that far, but I can see her point.
Historically, if we looked at the patterns of referring names to the Department of National Revenue from the Unemployment Insurance Commission as it relates to the fishery, one would have to agree, in looking at across the board decisions, that most of those decisions affecting the determination of a question related to women. I would like to cite as an example the squid fishery. When Japan bought dried squid from the East Coast of Canada, a great number of women became involved. The squid were dried and sold to Japan. All of a sudden, there was a request from the Unemployment Insurance Commission for the Department of National Revenue to do an audit to determine whether these people were actually fisherpersons. Consequently, hundreds of women had to appear before appeal boards, and eventually a federal judge had to attempt to prove that they were fisherpersons as it related to the Act.
Apart from the over-all problem, if we looked at the specifics of judgments from appeal courts in Canada, we would find
Fisheries Act
that there were many requests which were made to the courts to determine whether a particular person was a crew member. As the Hon. Member has stated, if there is a husband, his wife and two sons in a boat, usually the woman's name will be referred to the Department of National Revenue for a judgment. Of course, the reason for that referral is that the Unemployment Insurance Commission is wondering whether the woman is a crew member or a fisherperson. A crew member cannot be someone who does work on shore, in other words, when the catch is brought in from the boat. A fisherperson baits and hooks on shore so that the crew can go out on the ocean. Certainly it is not accidental. Most of the cases which are referred to the Department of National Revenue for determination of a question end up being cases which involve women's names. If anyone doubts that, all they have to do is to look at the records of the appeal courts with respect to the definition of a crew member. Most of the decisions which were made related to groups of women. It is somewhat unfortunate that the Unemployment Insurance Act and the regulations which define a fisherman and a crew member are so loose and convoluted in their definitions. They define a fisherperson or someone who actually participates in the catch. A fisherman who comes in after the catch, who salts the fish, or cuts the fish, or does up the gear or fixes the boat, is still considered a fisherman. Of course, the distinction is made whether or not that person was actually in the boat and took part in making the catch. Then we note that someone who steers the boat is defined as someone actually taking part in making the catch, whereas someone who baits the hook does not take part in making the catch.
It is unfortunate that most of the referrals made to the Department of National Revenue for determination of a question are actually women. The Hon. Member who previously spoke made an excellent point, and I want to ask her one question. The Department of Manpower, in conjunction with the Department of Fisheries, in supporting fisherpersons-if I can call them that-has had employment programs in the last two years when the fishery has been bad. Could the Hon. Member tell us whether she has looked at the hiring criteria of those programs, which are commonly referred to as Canada Works as they relate to her particular area of critique in this House, and whether or not she finds that the hiring criteria of federal works programs utilized in this manner are discriminatory toward women?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, yes, I would say that I have looked at the hiring criteria and, yes, they are discriminatory. However, yes, they are allowed to be discriminatory under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Affirmative action programs are part and parcel of the employment equity about which we have been talking so that we can assure the right of not only women but of native people, visible minorities and the handicapped to enjoy the fruits of their potential in the marketplace. In order to get there, we require certain kinds of measures which allow them access. Given the same kind of

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
skills and same kind of background, but lacking the experience, yes, we are entitled to ensure them affirmative action programs.
I must tell you, Mr. Speaker, by the way, that 1 wish it had been the affirmative action program which had caused the squid jiggers-and that is what they told me they were-of Newfoundland not to have to go with a complaint based on discrimination before the Human Rights Tribunal. They were right about their benefits and rights, and the decision came through in that way.
I am really fascinated, Mr. Speaker, to see how an area like the fisheries-to which I had not given much thought, and I was remiss-touches men, women and children and all elements of our society in a very profound way. I would imagine that this thought, in the sense that you look at these industries in a very stereotyped way, would hold, if you were looking at mining or forestry as well as fishing-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sheila Finestone: If you don't stop laughing, I am in trouble.


Mr. McCurdy:: You are doing all right.


Sheila Finestone: With respect to the question raised by my hon. friend, I would like to say that I hope he will understand that affirmative action is very much a point of priority for families in our society and particularly as it relates to the fishing world.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I admit that there was some element of tongue in cheek there for a moment, but the Hon. Member's speech was certainly one of the best non-traditional speeches which many of us have heard in the House. The Hon. Member expressed some excellent thoughts concerning the fishing industry about which, I am sure, many of us had not thought. It was an extremely good speech concerning the fishing industry.
I would like to put a question on the main thrust of the Bill. The Bill deals with the absolute power to allocate fish, and, of course, every fish represents a ten-dollar bill. We are talking about the Minister's unfettered right or absolute power to allocate money to different groups in a proportionate way, and that power is an extremely important part of this Bill. Under this particular legislation, there are a number of traditional groups which are entitled, on a traditional basis, to a share of the fishery. What we are now faced with is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) having the right to throw some of-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) (a) Government Advertising-Awarding of contracts. (b) RCMP-Request that Solicitor General seek immediate inquiry; the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Premier's trial (a) Internal investigation (b) Allegations attributed to Premier; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stack-house)-United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization-Canadian membership and funding.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I am also delighted to speak on Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, particularly as it affects the fisheries which is carried on in Canada's three oceans. I am happy to say that, like the previous speaker, I do have some personal experience of the industry and some personal viewpoints or perspectives which I feel I can offer in the debate on this Bill.
In 1972, just a couple of years after I came to Canada, I had the very distinct privilege of serving as a deck-hand on that great vessel, the United Church mission ship, the Thomas Crosby V, which sailed down the west coast of British Columbia. I considered it a real privilege to have the insight into the B.C. fishing industry, particularly the salmon fishery, which that working holiday gave me. I can recall being on cook duty during that cruise and coming up to the galley at six in the morning to be greeted by the sight of a beautiful fresh 15-pound salmon on the slab, a donation to the ship and its crew for the sort of work which that ship was doing among the fisherpeople of the B.C. coast. I also had the opportunity, and it was a valuable one, of meeting many of the people engaged in the fishing industry, users of the fishery who were not engaged on a commerical basis and people who utilized that fishery for recreation, subsistence and for earning a living, as a
March 11, 1985

very integral and important part of their life-style. I met the people who utilized that fishery for subsistence, that is, primarily native people, but also others, who took to the sea in small vessels and fished to help feed their families and supplement the rather limited employment opportunities and meagre transfer payments which they were receiving. I had the privilege of boarding a commercial vessel and looking around, and I am sorry that at this point I cannot remember if it was a seiner or a gillnetter, because I understand that the distinction is important. The distinction has caused considerable discussion and some disagreement on the B.C. coast. I also had the privilege of meeting people who were fishing for sport, as a break from work, as part of their retirement life-style, simply for their own enjoyment and recreation.
I can say that it was a way of life which made a profound impression on me, particularly as it relates to the native people involved in subsistence fishing. Although I represent a riding which has no significant salt-water fishery, I think it is a way of life which should be preserved and developed, as indeed the Act suggests in its objectives. However, without careful conservation of and attention to the fish stock as well as the breeding cycle, breeding grounds and breeding seasons of the salmon-I will not name the varieties for fear I fall into the trap of misdescribing them-this way of life and economic opportunity will not be passed on to the children and their children by the present generation of users of this very significant Canadian resource. Thus we have the introduction of the original Fisheries Act and thus we have the amendment before us in the form of Bill C-32.
I believe that this is another example of an inexperienced Government taking the hammer to crack a nut. We have, it is true, seen court decisions which the Government may feel go against the careful management of that fishery, but nevertheless we have to make the point that the remedy for an adverse court decision is not necessarily legislation, particularly not legislation of the very far-reaching and powerful nature embodied in what the Government tabled in this House on February 28.
I would like to draw a parallel to the salt-water fishery, which is of course the main topic of discussion, with the freshwater fishery experience in my own riding of Kenora-Rai-ny River. It would appear that the Government of Ontario, in its very questionable wisdom, has decided that certain user categories will have preference over others on the Lake of the Woods. This is based on an economic analysis of the return from fishing which employs some very seductive and somewhat gross measures which may not reflect, and of course cannot fully reflect, the various interests involved as well as the significance of the changes in the licencing and allocation regime. Certainly they do not reflect the wishes of a large number of people who live in that area and participate in that particular fishery. It appears that the Province of Ontario has decided that sport fishermen are to have first crack, so to speak, at the fish resource, primarily pickerel, and that the balance should be divided among the traditional commercial
Fisheries Act
fishery interests. Let it be remembered that these were the people who established the Lake of the Woods as a major producer of protein for Canadians during the westward expansion of our country in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. Lest it be said I am painting a rosy picture of history, it should also be acknowledged that the sturgeon fishery on the Lake of the Woods was completely fished out in a very short number of years because of demand and the fishery died out shortly thereafter. Obviously that is to be avoided in the ocean fisheries of Canada. Equally obviously, that is the Government's responsibility and it is trying to meet that responsibility, but not in a way which I or my Party can approve of, certainly not fully.
Under the amendments to the Act, the Minister gets the unfettered right to allocate the resource. He is given full power over the fishing industry without any form of appeal or review process as would normally be expected given Canada's democratic traditions. Bill C-32 flies not only in the face of our democratic traditions, but also in the face of biology. The Bill says that "fish" includes:
(a)	portions of fish,
Sensible enough. It also says:
(b)	shellfish, crustaceans, marine animals,
That is stretching a point, playing a little fast and loose with the language, but it continues:
marine plants and portions thereof,
It says fish includes marine plants and portions thereof. We are being asked to look at legislation which is phrased in shorthand. Surely any biologist, as my hon. colleague seated right next to me could tell us, would say that fish does not include marine plants or portions thereof. What next, Mr. Speaker? Will there be a move to repeal the law of gravity in this Chamber along the lines that whatever the Government enacts becomes the case? I think not. I certainly hope not. But this objection, it must be admitted, is a small one compared to the objection to the power that the Minister is granted over the fishery. Again I quote from the proposed substitute paragraph for paragraph 34(m) of the Act:
(m) authorizing a person engaged or employed in the administration or enforcement of this Act to vary, in respect of any area or portion thereof, any close time, fishing quota or limit on the size or weight of fish that has been fixed by the regulations.
What this does, Mr. Speaker, is to give the Minister dictatorial powers over this particular industry. Under this clause he would have virtual power to dictate every parameter of the industry partically down to what time of day the fisherpeople could exercise their bodily functions. That is frankly an abuse of the legislative process. I would not propose that even an NDP Government should have such sweeping powers without any right of appeal or review.
The Conservative election promises of fair representation, co-management and consultation have gone by the way. Such is life. The Government, because of the size of its majority, appears to be tabling legislation which reflects a blind belief

March 11, 1985
Fisheries Act
that it and it alone has the knowledge to express the will of the people. That is manifestly not so.
We have another related issue. The Progressive Conservatives apparently have decided to privatize the fishing vessel insurance plan and have set the target date as April, 1986. Looking at some of the press clippings, we can see that the Government, by tabling this legislation, is basically trying to go around the courts that have said that the Government does not have total powers over the industry. It does not have the unilateral right to determine all the variables that govern success or failures in fishing. There has been no proposal made that that sort of power without review or appeal should only be exercised by a board or commission that is fully representative of all the parties involved in this industry.
Let us consider the matter of the tradition in the industry that has grown up over decades. I do not suggest that all of those traditions are operable in the 1980s, but they certainly should be considered in the determination of what powers the Government should exercise through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) over the fisheries on Canada's coasts.
There are traditions and expectations in this industry. There are traditional user groups for the various areas. They have an expectation-I believe that it is a legitimate expectation in a democratic society-that the historic and traditional patterns of the industry be observed and the informal allocations that have grown up over the years be given attention in determining the allocation process.
The Minister has intimated that there is a pressing need to have these amendments passed quickly. User groups who have been consulted feel that there is no great rush to implement these changes. The other factor we must consider is that if these amendments are passed before a judgment is sought in the Supreme Court of Canada, one or more of the groups representing fisheries on the West Coast will challenge those amendments in the Supreme Court of Canada, which process I do not believe will operate in the long-run interests of anybody involved.
Most of those user groups want some sort of guarantee or floor under their participation in the industry. They want some assurance from the Government that the traditional fisheries and the traditional divisions in the fisheries will be respected. They want fair play. After all, fair play was one of the best selling themes in the election of last year. We in the New Democratic Party know that our emphasis and advocacy of fair systems in economics, in justice and in social relations was something that brought us back from the predicted brink of extinction to which we had been consigned by Canada's supposedly all-powerful media interests as recently as last February.
Frankly, I suggest that fair play has to be a major consideration in any allocation process of the fishery stocks, be it on the Atlantic, the Pacific or any freshwater lake in the country. There must be a recognition of that need and there must be a
recognition of the historical patterns of usage of the resource by the people who have grown to depend on that resource.
I say that the legislation is flawed in its concept as it is flawed in its execution. It envisages powers that would fundamentally endow the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with the right to say, "Sheep, goat; sheep, goat", in other words, "This group, this person will be successful in the industry; that group, that person will fail in the industry". The legislation is barbed with hooks. It is baited for the unwary. It will leave an entire way of life beached and gasping for air if it is allowed to pass in its present form.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicated a certain interest and knowledge about the relationship between the Indian community and the fishing industry. What protection would native people want contained in this Bill with respect to their traditional fishing rights?


John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I believe I could offer some of the mechanisms that might go a long way to satisfying the need for protection of the traditional fishery that Indian people feel. I believe that they would want to be consulted in any form of allocation process.
Second, in the formulation of advisory councils, as we suggest, for the regulation and development of Atlantic and Pacific fisheries, I am sure that native people would be seeking representation on any such advisory board and commission.
From experience in my own riding I could offer examples of the sort of tragic consequences that can occur and would derive inevitably from the deprivation of the Indian people of traditional fishing rights and their traditional fishing resource. I met very recently in Ottawa with the Chief of Shoal Lake Band No. 40, who told me that whereas as recently as seven years ago there were 15 families in his reserve depending on commercial fishing as a very large part of their livelihood, because of the reduction in quotas the number had gone down to two families three years ago and now there are no families fishing in Shoal Lake. Those families are either on welfare or they are engaged in some other form of industry, mostly off the reserve, because they were deprived of this access to the fishery.
I am sure that if the Chief of Shoal Lake Band No. 40 were here to answer the question, he would say that representation in the decision-making process would have been a key mechanism for those people to protect their very valid and significant interest in the fishery. After all, that has been exercised by them since time immemorial.
Similarly, if 1 talked to members of the band council of Grassy Narrows and asked them to trace the causes of the tremendous social damage that has been done to that community, I know that they would have given instances of the destruction of their fishery by mercury pollution, which rendered fish dangerous to eat and has led to terrible consequences that have been very well documented. They would have said that had they been allowed to protect their fishery and indeed been in a position to determine where they might go to seek a substitute fishery, that would indeed have averted
March 11, 1985

some of the terrible consequences which afflicted their community as a result of their not having had a say in the determination of the allocation of fish resources.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I notice the previous speaker had only two minutes to question and comment in the question and comment period. When the next session starts, would there be seven minutes remaining? Some of the material was very fascinating. Am I correct that the next time the Bill appears the Hon. Member will be allowed seven minutes?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: As the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) knows, this is a question that arose last week in the House. May I just remind him that if the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) is present, at that time, it would be possible to complete the question and comment period.


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on another point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that Mr. Speaker today, in the absence of the Member in the House, invited comments or questions. Could the principle be extended a little further?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I do not intend to discuss a decision made by another Speaker in this chair which I have not seen. I just explained what the position is of the Chair now. There are other recourses for the Member if he wishes to take them.

Order, please. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.\n\nMarch 11, 1985"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 164?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Agreed.
Training and Development Program EMPLOYMENT



Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of consulting the provinces, educators and labour representatives, for the purpose of implementing a modern high technology training and development program which would offer to many Canadians, and especially to youth, the possibility to find satisfactory employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the issue is a very current one. The motion was tabled last year on December 13, if I remember correctly, and although much has happened since then, I still think it is a very current subject and one that, I hope, interests the people of my riding and the Members of this House.
Mr. Speaker, you have read the motion, and I therefore assume Hon. Members have understood the purpose of this motion: to implement a national training program with the support of the provinces and the private sector. This will be a training program for our young people, for the jobless, and for those people who today are having trouble finding satisfactory employment.
Mr. Speaker, it is always wise to put problems in perspective and in this case it means that we should remember that since the end of the Second World War, there has been a spectacular development in technology. This development has meant a complete transformation of the kinds of machines and tools used by man. For over 2000 years, energy-producing machines have been evolving to the point that their development has produced a complete transformation of our society. It was the industrial revolution in the nineteenth century, which was to modify profoundly our social structures, radically change production techniques and diversify goods and create both new needs and new services.
These changes did not always occur smoothly, but after 100 years, we can easily perceive the benefits this revolution brought to western society. However, the technological changes did not stop there. With the discovery of increasingly powerful energy sources, we started to develop new tools which were themselves increasingly powerful. This was the advent of the data processing machine, the vacuum-tube computer, the transistor and microelectronics.
The changeover from energy-oriented technology to information-oriented technology is going to bring about changes in our society which, I think, could be equated with a second industrial revolution. The first revolution completely transformed society and social relationships, but the second revolution, by its very essence which is information, will bring about a transformation that will be so complete that we are hardly capable of imagining all the repercussions it will have. We need only think, for instance, of the tremendous potential the computer gives us in management, production, and planning and control of services. Our financial systems and international banking as we know them today will no longer be able to

March 11, 1985
Training and Development Program
operate without increasingly perfected computers. The same applies to the government and business sectors.
During the last thirty years, changes have been relatively gradual. Information processing invaded our daily lives without giving anyone much cause for concern. The 70s, for instance, were a time of considerable economic development. There were jobs for whoever wanted one and our standard of living was rising in a manner that was quite spectacular.
However, economic development was also visible in the information processing sector, and in an even more spectacular manner. While all other sectors were experiencing considerable price increases and inflation was gradually becoming a major problem, in the information processing industry, we witnessed a quite incredible drop in price, at a ratio of 10,000 to 1. 1 mean that what cost $10,000 in 1960 now costs only $1.00.
As a result, computer science and microelectronics have gained worldwide currency-from offices to industry, in private homes, invading sectors where man would find a job which is now done by a machine. Car assembly lines have been turned into computer-controlled plants monitored by a handful of men or women; a secretary using a word processor does the work which used to keep three employees busy. Many jobs disappear, traditional skills no longer exist-typography is a good example. On the other hand, completely new types of jobs appear. Newspapers are full of employment offers for programmers, computer engineers, systems analysts and designers, and electronics technicians.
Those factors have given rise to a paradox in Canada: a seasonally-adjusted national unemployment rate averaging 11.9 per cent, and close to 19 per cent among youths aged 18 to 24, yet at the same time-and that is the paradox-there is such a severe shortage of qualified workers in specialized sectors that in many cases we have to rely on immigrants to fill those jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the Parliamentary Task Force on Employment Opportunities for the '80s referred to that problem in its report entitled "Work for tomorrow". It even pointed out, and I quote:
The existence of imbalances in many sectors of the Canadian labour market and the probability that such imbalances will grow worse in the '80s unless corrective measures are taken to set the situation right.
Well, just what are those measures? To anyone reflecting upon the situation, it becomes clear that a radical change is required in the training given to Canadians. This change is needed as much in traditional education and training sectors, colleges and universities as in manpower retraining. That is the challenge we Canadians must meet if we are to remain in the forefront and protect our international markets as well as our standard of living.
To achieve that, we must be creative and imaginative. The transition from a consumer society to a data-processing society forces us to devise new methods and to set up new, more dynamic and flexible structures. An ability to adapt to change
will always be paramount in our new programs. Above all, the various interest groups at all levels of Government, industry and traditional education systems have to realize the extent of the problem with a view to working together towards a common objective.
All those efforts must be channeled. We must have a master plan to provide the basis on which these new training programs will operate. The problem is national in scope. It is a problem that should, in our national interest, be one of our priorities. It would seem that the federal Government would be eminently suited to playing the role of conciliator. Where occupational training is concerned, there is, of course, both a jurisdictional and ideological conflict between the federal Government and the provinces.
Let me explain. The Canadian Constitution gives the provinces the right to legislate in the area of education and training. This is a historical development and goes back to the time when this country was founded and it was felt that each province should have the means to preserve its cultural, linguistic and religious identity. On the other hand, the economic development of Canada as a whole is a federal responsibility. The occupational training issue is tightly wedged between these two sets of priorities, hence the jurisdictional problem. However, we must understand that the present situation no longer compares with the one that existed when our country was founded. Canadian society has changed and is now facing new challenges. It must turn towards the future and prepare for the twenty-first century.
The problem of occupational training is a national one, as I said. Whether they are from Ontario or Quebec, from the East or the West, all Canadians are affected. Our economic future as a nation is at stake. Therefore, there must be a definite federal presence, otherwise the federal Government will be accused of neglecting to fulfil its role. The participation of provincial governments is absolutely essential and it can only be obtained if we make them understand the urgency of the situation.
However, the situation is not entirely new. There is already a certain body of federal legislation that concerns occupational training. In 1960, the Parliament of Canada passed the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, which received royal assent on December 20, 1960. This legislation made it possible for the federal Government to become more actively involved in this area, and the provinces have benefited from the attendant economic spin-offs. For instance, before 1960, federal spending on vocational training totalled about $110 million. From 1960 to 1966, it increased to $850 million. Most of that money-70 per cent-was earmarked for capital expenditures, which explains the phenomenal growth of educational insitutions. In those days, during the 1960-70 decade, Mr. Speaker, the provinces had a secondary school and
March 11, 1985

college construction program which was 75 per cent financed by the federal Government.
Then we established the Department of Employment and Immigration, the Canada Manpower Training Program, the Canada Manpower Industrial Training Program, the Critical Trade Skills Training Program, and a series of federal programs designed precisely to meet the challenge of training ill-prepared workers who needed special attention.
In January 1982, the federal Government announced a National Training Program and, on August 2, 1982, Parliament adopted the National Training Act. The Liberal Federal Government then made training a priority, as evidenced by the fact that $1.2 billion had been set aside for a manpower retraining fund. Those figures make it obvious that the Liberal Government's interest in that field was not new. But something new is the challenges we have to meet now. New challenges call for new solutions. When I say "new", I do not mean a $120.9 million cut-back in the National Training Program, as the Conservative Government has done in the estimates tabled recently. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, this program is costing us ... in my riding I took advantage of the National Training Program.
The skills growth fund which was part of the National Training Act has been cancelled by the Government. This program gave money to industry and to community colleges for new training facilities. I had occasion to work closely with the high-tech industry in this area. We submitted to the Government of the day, in 1983, a program which was approved for funding under the skills growth fund of the National Training Act. It provided $1 million to the Kanata High-Technology Training Association for the purchase of a computer and $1.5 million for courseware development. Of course this program was a success. I am sad to see today that such co-operation with the industry has been cancelled because of the cutbacks decreed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in the order of $100 million. Indeed this makes it impossible the the skills growth fund to continue. That program has been cancelled.

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the time has come to create a kind of national manpower training institute as a federal entity bringing together the various training programs for improved coordination of them. Such an institute could become the perfect instrument enabling Canada to affect changes that are imposed upon us by the technological challenge. This federal institute could analyse the whole impact of the technological challenge on the Canadian economy, develop and implement better-adapted training programs, train managers and help us to meet the challenge of the century.
This national training institute could provide services to our young people who cannot find job opportunities as well as to
Training and Development Program
scientists, and women who are affected by the training programs which, as clearly demonstrated today, are lacking in our communities. For instance, I became aware this week that there is in my own riding a community organization called "Comite coordonnateur en Alpha" which has decided to deal with the serious problem of illiteracy within the Ottawa-Vanier area, a problem which is becoming increasingly alarming because it is quite concealed, overlooked and wide-spread. As a matter of fact, the Ottawa-Vanier "Comite coordonnateur en Alpha" has submitted an application for a subsidy under the International Year of Youth program, and I hope the Minister of State in charge of this program will give a favourable response to this application from a group within my riding.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that such a Canadian manpower training institute could generate interest within the provinces, provide the sense of purpose which we are all seeking in the area of education, and in the national interest, that there is a real need to encourage all individuals, organizations and levels of government concerned about this problem to work together and set up concrete and coordinated programs to help young Canadians train and prepare for the future.
Mr. Speaker, the training institute could work jointly with industry in providing on the job training, in helping industries midernize their production facilities, and in developing a robotics sector in Canada. God knows how much we need that! But mainly, a national training and manpower Institute could assume the leadership Canada needs to reorganize its manpower and economy. All participants at every level could benefit from its economic spin-offs, from its expertise. Finally, the Canadian economy, the labour market and the standard of living of Canadians would be better off.
Mr. Speaker, it is my hope that this motion will be supported by the House and that we can involve the Canadian Government, the provinces and the private sector, and implement for our Canadian workers a worthwhile program of manpower training and in-service training that is greatly needed.
Mir. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to rise on a motion which, given the changes that are occurring which have been aptly described by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), is one that ought to be given very careful consideration. I was interested in hearing the review of the industrial revolution which may be variously estimated as having taken decades to proceed or a century to proceed.
One of the dramatic changes which has occurred is that changes that took a century to occur previously now take a matter of decades. For example, it has been estimated that the amount of accumulated knowledge in the field of biology has doubled in a half decade. Therefore, we are dealing with a very

March 11, 1985
Training and Development Program
dramatic change in the character of our environment, whether it be the national or international environment.
We talk a good deal about the technological revolution, the data revolution, the informational revolution. There is an inclination to see it, even though it is rapidly changing, in static terms. Certainly one of the clear results of what is occurring is a very dramatic change in the nature of the kind of workforce that this country is going to have to produce in order to compete internationally and to ensure economic survival.
I do not think anyone is unaware of the fact that in the past it was possible to produce abundant high-paying jobs which were based on the routine involvement in an assembly line that defined tasks in very narrow terms and allowed people with very little education successfully to fill a niche that permitted that individual and his family to have reasonable economic returns and comfort. Based on this accessibility to high-paying low-skilled jobs, we achieved a high level of standard of living in this country, as did many other western nations.
This dependence on the routine, narrowly prescribed jobs of the past is no longer possible for us. We are all aware now that many Third World nations on the basis of low wages are benefiting from a shift of production to those areas. We can no longer depend on that kind of engagement in industrial and economic enterprise to provide jobs for all our people. Nor can we depend upon the assembly line and that kind of occupation to guarantee our economic survival. Our strong suit in the future certainly must be based on the extent to which we have an educated, versatile, adaptable workforce.
One thing that concerns me about the prescription that has been described by the Hon. Member is the implications of the use of the term "training", as if in this day and age it were possible as it was in the past to provide individuals with little on-hand experience in a plant and thus make them adaptable to the new environment in which they live. If there is one lesson that certainly ought to have been gained by what has been occurring over the last few years, it is that every attempt to accord people an opportunity to fill new jobs by the static, old-fashioned approach to training without anything else being involved has ended with the realization that by the time they are trained, the jobs are gone.
We have to look for a new prescription. While I hate to use the current jargon, it is a prescription that must be based on the notion of a generic education that will provide individuals with the kinds of skills, whether they be writing, mathematical, communications or other skills, to permit him or her to acquire very rapidly the new knowledge that is required to succeed in a highly technological and informational society as previously described.
I have difficulty in seeing the solution being achieved within the narrow description of a national training institute. As a matter of fact, I have difficulty seeing a proper description being achieved through the establishment of any central body which would see the solution in terms of what is described as training, unless there is something implied in the use of this term which has not been elaborated in the presentation of the
Hon. Member. Clearly, what we are talking about is the possibility that we may very well be faced with the impossibility of adapting large portions of our population to the new industrial age.
Unless we direct our attention to the entire educational system from the ground up, if we are to survive as an industrial nation, if we are to survive in the new economic climate, we will have to address the issue of providing an educated workforce that can be further educated on a continuing basis throughout their lifetime. I do not hear within the prescription that I just heard the answer to that problem. It is a complex one, there is no question about that. The motivation behind the motion is indeed a sound one, but there must be a little more care taken in elaborating the approach which must be taken to the solution of this problem.
True, it involves a number of jurisdictions and there must be co-ordination of the efforts of the federal Government, the provinces and the various sectors of the community within those two separate jurisdictions, but we must give a good deal more careful thought to this than was given in the presentation we have heard. I hope the Hon. Member will address this subject with a little more care, bring back a motion at some future time perhaps and after a little more widespread consultation on the problem that is to be addressed. Perhaps some process might be designed. We are living in a time of process. Perhaps a process might be arrived at which will permit this huge problem to be addressed. It is far too complicated to have been properly addressed in what we have heard. It is far more complex than what I regard to be a rather simplistic approach as suggested in the motion. Although well-motivated, it is destined to fail, as have all short-term approaches to training in the past.


Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I strongly doubt that the Hon. Member would have moved this resolution if he had understood the intent of the consultation paper on training released in December. The new labour market strategy announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) at the First Ministers' conference in Regina further develops the consultation process in the linking of training and employment initiatives. We have consulted very widely, not only with the provinces, educators and labour representatives, as the Hon. Member suggests, but also with employer groups, voluntary associations, community groups, native associations, women's groups and many more.
The Government does not need to consider the advisability of consultation now. It has made the consultation process the foundation of its approach to policy development before it even took office. The Hon. Member proposes a new program. The Government has developed an entirely new strategy which will go well beyond any single program.
The Government realized from the outset that the challenging conditions facing all Canadians at the present time provided a new and fundamental opportunity for Canada. This is
March 11, 1985

the time of invention and enterprise, the time for renewal and rebuilding. It is an era of new ideas, an era which calls for the full and equal participation of all Canadians in the economic life of our country. The restrictions of time and place no longer apply. Microtechnology is fully portable. The workplace of tomorrow may be a small town or a big city, the home or the office. Technology promises us new freedom and new avenues of participation.
The Government is fully aware of the problems facing the country. It has been obvious for some years that technological changes were accelerating and posing new problems. The previous Government did not seem particularly aware of these obvious developments and it moved slowly in doing anything about them.
When we initiated consultation, we put to the individuals and groups with whom we met a number of simple questions: Is there enough training going on in Canada? Is it the right kind? Are we training the right people in the right places for tomorrow's needs? The responses implied a long string of failures.
First, programs were so complex and ridden with bureaucratic barriers that business, labour and Canadians generally often just gave up on them. Training programs seemed to lead nowhere. Make-work job creation programs simply shifted people around like packages in a warehouse until they could requalify for unemployment insurance. Training and job creation, instead of being integrated into a package which could give an individual marketable experience and skills, generally operated separately from one another.
Programs tended to ignore regional diversity. Solutions were considered at the centre and imposed without regard to the plain fact that what was useful in one province could be pointless in another. Even programs which were specifically designed to overcome the failures and shortcomings of other programs did not seem to work. The separate initiatives for women ended less in affirmative action than they did in even further segregation from the employment mainstream.
The consultations provided some useful lessons which the Government has incorporated in the new employment strategy. We must have real development, not dependence. Programs and initiatives must prepare people for real, meaningful jobs.
Training and job creation must be viewed as an investment to help make the Canadian labour force fully competitive with others elsewhere in the world. Women and men must be encouraged to look at skills development not as a one time affair but as an ongoing experience, part of a life-long learning process. Labour market initiatives must be undertaken in co-operation with the provinces, the private sector and many other groups.
The First Ministers' conference in Regina showed that the Government is building a national consensus. There was full recognition of the importance of employment and skills development to Canada's economic renewal. There was also a concrete commitment to work together in the development and implementation of an entirely new labour market strategy.
Training and Development Program
The First Ministers agreed on the following points: Programs must respond to the varying needs of all regions. There must be flexibility and community participation. Responsibility must be shared between governments and the private sector. The role of small business is critical. Women, natives, youth and other groups must have equal access to training and employment. Programs must be simple and understandable. Training must bring an economic advantage. Training for training's sake is a thing of the past.
Two of the six thrusts of the new labour market strategy are particularly relevant to the Hon. Member's resolution. The first is the skill investment thrust to which the Government will be making an initial commitment of $80 million in 198586. The purpose of this thrust is to help people in occupations threatened by technological change to acquire skills and experience they will need for new jobs, new occupations and new careers.
A second thrust of the strategy is job entry to which the Government is committing an initial $125 million in 1985-86. This thrust is designed to help young people as well as adult women and others entering or re-entering the labour market. The training and employment development measures of this thrust will be carefully oriented to develop the skills and experience required in the future. This, of course, means that participants, notably including youth, will be exposed to training and experience in high technology activities.
In conclusion, the Government is way ahead of the Hon. Member's suggestions about the advisability of consultation. The Government's strategy has a specific thrust to help young people develop a productive, satisfying attachment to the labour force and to acquire the foundation in necessary skills and work experience.
In co-operation with the provinces and the private sector, the Government will be doing more than simply exposing young people to training in high technology. It will be seeking to ensure that the skills and experience acquired by Canadian youth will prepare them for the labour market which we have known for many years will be extensively altered by technological change.


Mr. Leo Duguay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to speak on this motion. I would like first to tell my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that I am in total agreement with his historical outline. Clearly, he has supplied us with great food for thought and he has very clearly identified the problem.
But I have real doubts, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member would have presented his motion had he understood the objectives of the consultation paper on training that was put forward in December last. I say this, because the consultation process we have already initiated is much wider in scope than the one he has just described.
The new labour market strategy announced by the Right Hon. Prime Minister and the Minister at the First Ministers'

March 11, 1985
Training and Development Program Conference in Regina puts greater emphasis on the consultation process and the combination of initiatives, training and job creation.
Very stiff competition on the international level and technological innovation are now altering the economic situation faced by Canadian workers.
Over the next decades, developments of that sort will have their impact on the relative significance of various industrial
sectors and will be affecting skill requirements in the Canadian work force. This is the background referred to by my colleague.
It is also true, Mr. Speaker, that technological change obviously cannot help Canada if our labour force does not have the training required to make use of it.
Furthermore, a well-trained and highly educated population would have the best opportunities to develop other innovations, which in turn will generate economic growth over the coming years.

It is absolutely correct that consultation is important. It must be clear to all of my colleagues in the House that the Government has undertaken the largest consultation of any Government in recent history. It must be clear that the Minister has gone to meet with officials in every province to discuss the entire matter of employment. It is also clear that there has been consultation with educators. The Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) held a meeting with the Canadian Teachers' Federation to discuss possibilities in terms of education. As well, it is on record that six or seven of the Ministers have had individual meetings with officials of the Department of Labour. This Government and its officers have nothing to learn from past Governments and their officers about consultation.
As well, I would like to agree that this resolution is one to which it is difficult for anyone to object. I think everyone would agree that it is necessary to consider the advisability of consulting with the provinces. However, I wish the framer of the resolution had placed it in a somewhat broader context. Training and the improvement of training programs is only one part of a massive undertaking of the Government. There are also broad economic considerations at which we must look regarding the matter of employment for young Canadians.
It is true that training for high technology is a crucial aspect of this resolution. It is true that that is important for all Canadians and especially for the young. However, in terms of broad economic considerations, it is not only a matter of training young people that is important but it is essential that there be jobs for those young people. There cannot be jobs when we do not attract capital investment. There cannot be jobs when we have a national energy policy that chases capital away. There cannot be jobs when we have a Foreign Investment Review Agency that chases potential business away. It is important to keep interest rates low. It is important to increase productivity. Those are lessons which we need not learn from
the past. When my colleague spoke about the record of the Liberal Government, he should have mentioned those things. They are the reasons we have unemployment.
Having said that, I think the intent of the resolution is sound. Young Canadians must be ready for the future, and anything which we can do to help them is very important.
Our Government has done a lot more than just consider the advisability of consultation-it has acted. Anyone who has sat in the House during the last six months will know that the Government has announced the Challenge '85 program. That program will help young people in receiving appropriate training and in getting work during the summer in order that they can have the income to continue their university education. The Government has taken positive steps and initiated an ongoing consultation process with the provinces, educators, private sector employers and labour sector representatives. This Government has undertaken far more consultation in six months that did the previous Government in its entire mandate.
Co-operation from all sectors has resulted from the understanding that not only training but retraining must become a lifelong commitment for the labour force. It is true that the society of tomorrow will be very different from the industrial age in which most of us grew up. Inevitably, that makes the task of preparing for the information age important and critical. Nothing is more important than the way in which it will affect young Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member who spoke earlier about communicating a certain sense of urgency to the Canadian public, that, after being until last September principal of a secondary school, I can assure him that this sense of urgency is already in the minds of the Canadian people. In my own school division in the West, a number of computer awareness programs have already been initiated. From the pre-school level to Grade XII in primary and secondary schools, there are already in Canada a number of programs to make students aware of the situation described by the Hon. Member.

It is clear that nothing is more important than the way in which this program will affect young Canadians. Young Canadians already understand the importance of the technological society. They live with it daily. I would not agree with my colleague that we need to remind them about the sense of urgency. Young Canadians need only get up in the morning and see the sophisticated gadgetry in their homes to understand that technology is already with them. Not only do they understand that technology is already here, but we only have to look at any school in Canada to recognize that it is the adults who are more often afraid of technology than the young.
March 11, 1985

The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) spoke about the Liberal record and its contribution to young people, education and money. On this side of the House, we categorically reject the notion that the answer to every problem in Canada is to spend more money. The consultation to which the Hon. Member referred is essential if we are to develop plans which will succeed, especially when we consider the limited resources we have.

Mr. Speaker, it must be pointed out that Canadians already have this sense of urgency and that young Canadians especially are well aware of the situation.
About the record of the Liberal Government over the years I do not think we have anything to worry about on this side because we have already had much more consultation in six months than the Liberals had during their whole mandate. [English]
As the Government we are firmly committed to meeting the challenges with which this situation confronts us. The consultations which have taken place over the last six months have proven that this commitment is shared by all Canadians and that the spirit of co-operation is real and tangible. I attended the First Ministers' conference in Regina. When I returned to my constituency, I was stopped by hundreds of Canadians who told me over and over again how nice it was to do business with a Government that truly cares about what Canadians have to say. It is not a Government which spends more money; it is a Government which asks Canadians what they think should be done and shares with them the responsibility.
The commitment which we have seen from Canadians over the past six months is outstanding and essential. Canadians are proving that if asked they will be glad to co-operate. The spirit of co-operation is real and tangible. All Members of Parliament see it on a regular basis. The Government is striving to provide Canadians with the real training and employment opportunities they will need in a strong and competitive economy.
The resolution talks about consultation and training. That is important, but we must talk about a strong competitive economy. There is only one thing which will help Canadians more than better training, that is, an economy which will provide jobs. The efforts which the Government has made are part of a collective national effort which involve the federal Government, provincial Governments and the private sector.
In December, 1984, a consultation paper was released on training. As a result, concerned groups and individuals from across Canada shared their views with the Government on the very critical matter of training and retraining. It is incredible that when people are asked to, they come forward and provide opinions. Now that Canadians are being asked, they are responding in record numbers. The consultations which have taken place have indicated that a completely revised approach is necessary in the area of federal support for training and employment creation. We must match skills to the demands of the future, not to the outdated needs of the past. Our resources
Training and Development Program
must be used effectively to ensure that youth, and all Canadians, will benefit from the training which will meet the needs of the economy and the ever-changing technology.
The new labour market strategy, which was announced during the First Ministers' conference in Regina, will meet the new objectives and provide a more positive and structured approach to training and employment.

Mr. Speaker, the initiatives of the Federal Government will be part of a collective effort, and because of this effort, the nature of the programs will meet the special needs of the regions and the labour force. We intend to be flexible. The balance between programs will be established according to regional needs. We are thus moving away from the centralized approach of the past. We shall join our efforts and share the responsibility to create an economic climate that can stimulate investment and long-term job creation for all Canadians. [English]
Even though the programs are geared to all segments of the Canadian labour market, special efforts will be made to encourage women to forge ahead in new fields. The advent of the information age presents opportunities for women which they have never had before. It is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that training and employment opportunities are made available on an equitable basis so that Canadians will be adequately prepared to take advantage of the opportunities.
The Government has started on a categorical and straightforward plan to consult first, to plan, and then to put its actions into force. I think that is very different from what the previous Government has done, a Government which had the habit of spending first and thinking later. When the appropriate time comes, we on this side of the House will be very pleased to support this resolution.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). The topic of youth unemployment and the ability of Governments to ensure that the young people of this country are properly directed toward meaningful jobs, and jobs which exist, is one to which all Hon. Members of this House should pay a lot of attention.
Over the last few years I had the experience of being a member of the provincial Legislature of the Province of Ontario. During that time I was part of a Liberal task force on youth unemployment which travelled throughout that province and subsequently reported to the Legislature on the needs of our young people. One of the most disheartening facts we had to face was that thousands of jobs in the high technology area were not being filled while close to 20 per cent of our young people were unemployed. I feel that we as Governments and as a society are misleading our young people if we do not properly inform them and direct them to opportunities in the

March 11, 1985
Training and Development Program
proper areas. Upon interviewing young people primarily at high school age we found that the average student in grades 9 to 12 spends something in the order of 12 minutes with guidance counsellors. It is quite obvious that spending 12 minutes with a guidance counsellor when one has reached that very important formative age is clearly insufficient.

One of the problems faced by the young is that in high schools there are too few vocational guidance counsellors.
We know of course that in Ontario for instance, there is one counsellor for every 410 students although departmental standards call for one counsellor for every 350 students, and counsellors and teachers themselves claim there should be one counsellor for every 300 students.
Under such conditions it comes as no surprise, Mr. Speaker, that students lack the guidance needed to choose the skills they should develop in order to find jobs in the future.
Moreover, counsellors often have to provide emergency counselling whenever young people meet with personal difficulties and so forth. This means that our young are facing quite serious difficulties which this House should concern itself about to a larger extent than it has done in the past.
I would like to take this opportunity to commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for his excellent initiative in calling the attention of the House to the motion.
Mr. Speaker, it should also be recognized that this very Government, since its election last Fall, when a lot of things were promised to a lot of peoples, as I said on a number of occasions, has let the young down after making all those promises. This is precisely the right occasion today to ask the young and the public at large to phone, to contact the Government Members and urge them to fulfil their election promises.
Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that there is a $120.9 million cut in the National Training Program, and this includes a $40 million reduction in the Industrial Training Program. As we know, that program did benefit the young.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, when we are speaking of where our youth are going in the future, we should remind ourselves of the ineptitude of the Government in providing meaningful summer employment. I am sure you will remember vividly, Mr. Speaker, the day the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) came into this House and, after much prodding by members of the Opposition, finally announced her youth employment program which she called "Challenge '85". In announcing this program she said that this would help out many young people.
Our office immediately thereafter received a little folder which explained to us how the program would function. My staff contacted the Minister's office and asked for several hundred forms so that we could distribute them to our riding. Of course, we wanted this program to function. We felt that
this should be a non-partisan issue and we should do our best to make it work. It was in the interests of our constituents to do so. But the staff in the Minister's office told us they were awfully sorry but they could not give us forms for the Challenge '85 program, which I thought was rather unusual. I suggested to the young lady I was speaking to that perhaps I should go back down to the Chamber and have a little chat with the Minister and perhaps I will be able to receive some forms, and I did receive about 20 forms. I went on a few speaking engagements in my riding and distributed these forms. A few days later I received a phone call from a Conservative back-bencher who I will not name, Mr. Speaker, who asked my staff how we got our forms because he could not get any. We had used the forms we received in my riding and we could not give the Conservative Member any. We felt that he probably had enough connections with the Minister-or should have had-to get a bunch of forms for himself but apparently he did not. After we had distributed the forms throughout our riding we were told that those were the wrong forms. It seems that the Minister had changed forms after she had started the distribution of them.
Last week I had a little chat with the Minister in this House and she finally sent new forms to my office. The stack of forms was six inches thick. There were enough for everyone at that point, but it is important to realize that there are only a few days left in which people can apply for the program. So I believe we are seeing here a sample of just how high the priority of the Government is for youth employment.
I am happy to support this motion. I would like to congratulate again the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for his motion, which I feel should receive support from all Hon. Members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is as follows: Mr. Gauthier, seconded by Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques), moves:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of consulting the provinces, educators and labour representatives, for the purpose of implementing a modern high technology training and development program which would offer to many Canadians, and especially to youth, the possibility to find satisfactory employment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

March 11, 1985



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 45 deemed to have been moved.

Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak this afternoon on an issue which I have raised many times in this House in the past concerning government advertising contracts. On January 8, 1985, Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police asking that an immediate criminal investigation be launched into the circumstances surrounding the Government awarding of advertising contracts to firms allegedly involved with the Conservative Party.
According to newspaper reports at the time, the firms in question were to be awarded or had been awarded contracts conditional upon their agreeing to return a portion of their fees to the Progressive Conservative Party. I was referring to two newspaper articles, one of which appeared on January 5, 1985, in The Toronto Star. The second article appeared on January 7 in The Globe and Mail making similar allegations. These of course are very serious allegations and there is really only one way we can clear the air. That is, Mr. Speaker, to have a criminal investigation to determine whether there is infringement of Secton 108 or Section 110 of the Criminal Code of Canada. According to legal advice which I and my colleagues have received, Section 108, dealing with bribery, and Section 110, dealing with fraud, could be offended if those allegations were proven true.
Again, this is a very serious matter, one in respect of which various people across this country want immediate clarification. As of this day I have yet to receive from the RCMP confirmation as to whether or not there will be a criminal investigation into this issue.
On January 9, 1985, The Toronto Star wrote in an editorial entitled "What's Behind the Ad Deal", the following:
An immediate investigation is needed into all circumstances of a patronage deal that gives two prominent Progressive Conservatives the exclusive right to handle tens of millions of dollars' worth of federal Government advertising. Only a thorough, independent inquiry can determine the truth of serious charges that the arrangement with Roger Nantel of Montreal and Peter Simpson of Toronto-both solid supporters of Prime Minister Brian Mulroney-is perilously close to resembling a kickback scheme.
Despite a good deal of back-pedaling by all concerned after the publication Saturday of an exclusive story about the contract by the Star's Diane Francis, this troublesome allegation has been left hanging. If it turns out to be true, this is a serious matter. When he was first asked about the deal with Ottawa, Nantel said his share of the profits from the handling of advertising for 39 federal departments "won't go to individuals, but will go to special events for the sake of the party like seminars with Quebec ministers so they can interface with the
Adjournment Debate
grass-roots.'' But later he insisted he doesn't remember saying any such thing and called that quotation "an honest mistake."
Perhaps Mr. Speaker, all of this is an honest mistake. I am sure that all of us would wish that to be the case. But, after more than two months of waiting for the RCMP to launch this criminal investigation, I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) in this House to immediately ask for a criminal investigation into this matter. Exactly two months after I wrote the letter, and two months less four days after the editorial in The Toronto Star, the Solicitor General replied to me in the House on March 5, 1985, as recorded at page 2744 of Hansard:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seems to suffer from the same misunderstanding that many on that side do, that the Solicitor General directs the RCMP to conduct investigations, or interferes with their operations.
I am not claiming that the Solicitor General should interfere with the operation of the RCMP but, as I understand it and have been advised by some of my colleagues, the Solicitor General of Canada can definitely, if he wishes, request from the RCMP that an immediate criminal investigation be launched into any matter. In this matter, when it could affect the credibility of some of his colleagues in the House, I suggest that an immediate criminal investigation was not only desirable but indeed necessary for the protection of all.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 1985, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) informed the House that he had written to the Commissioner of the RCMP two months ago requesting that a criminal investigation be carried out in respect to the awarding of certain Government advertising contracts. He also indicated that his colleague, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) made similar representations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). In view of the fact that two months had elapsed since these actions were taken, the Hon. Member asked the Solicitor General to inform the House whether the requested investigation would be carried out.
As has been mentioned, the Solicitor General responded that as far as he was aware, the Commissioner had not made a determination that there was a need for such an investigation.
This reply prompted a further question from the Hon. Member as to whether the Solicitor General intended to ask the RCMP to immediately initiate a criminal investigation into those matters. The Solicitor General replied that the role of the Solicitor General of Canada does not extend to directing the RCMP to carry out investigations or otherwise interfering with the forces' operations.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell in asking whether the Solicitor General intended to ask the RCMP to initiative a criminal investigation into certain matters, suggests that there is vested in the executive and political arms of Government the authority to require police forces in general, and the RCMP, in particular, to take direction as to how to

March 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
deal with individual cases. I can assure the Hon. Member that this is just not so.
While the Solicitor General is accountable to the Parliament of Canada for the over-all direction and control of the RCMP, his authority does not extend to directing that force to carry out investigations in specific cases.
It has long been recognized both in our statutes and in common-law, that the decisions as to whether investigations will be carried out in particular cases rests with the police. This is one of the most important principles upon which our criminal justice system is based. This is the principle which ensures that the rule of law takes precedence over political considerations. It is this principle which protects citizens in Canada and other western democracies from political tyranny.
The Solicitor General accepts the view of the McDonald Commission that:
-the government must fulfil its democratic mandate by ensuring that in the final analysis it is the government that is in control of the police, and accountable for it.
But the Commission continued by noting that:
-there is no inconsistency in asserting simultaneously that every member of the government, and above all the Minister responsible for the RCMP, has an essential obligation not normally to become involved in the decisions to be made by members of the Force, including the Commissioner himself, with respect to investigation, arrest and prosecution in individual cases.
The Hon. Member is asking the Solicitor General to subvert his principle of intruding upon the independent responsibilities of the RCMP. I have every confidence that the RCMP is considering the Hon. Member's representation and will take action as it deems appropriate in the circumstances. The Solicitor General can assure the Hon. Member that the RCMP will inform him of its determination and he is free to inquire of the Commissioner when he might receive a reply.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE-PREMIER'S TRIAL-INTERNAL INVESTIGATION. (B) ALLEGATIONS ATTRIBUTED TO PREMIER
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that my colleague, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), has risen once again to demand that an investigation be conducted. I have risen because in the situation that I want to talk about the Government has agreed to have an investigation into the way in which the Hatfield investigation and prosecution were conducted, and the decision about appeal. The Government has agreed to conduct an inquiry. But I have to rise because of the unsatisfactory way in which answers are being given about that inquiry and the lack of determination in that inquiry. I believe the inquiry must have been started some time in the fall after October 26, but I do not know for sure. It was certainly on during the month of January. But this is March and this is an inquiry that is very badly needed because of allegations that have been made in a number of places that reflect badly on the RCMP.
First there was the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) holding a meeting with a person under investigation. I think that reflects badly on the RCMP because of what might have happened at that meeting. The Solicitor General has not given a good account of the way in which he governed himself following that meeting. He has given us the assurance, which the Commissioner confirms, that he did not directly intrude into the investigation, but nothing has been said about what might have been done behind the scenes to influence the way in which the prosecution was conducted. That is an area which should be investigated, but which may not be part of the investigation that is supposed to be under way right now.
Also requiring investigation are Mr. Hatfield's allegations that somebody in the RCMP was out to get him and to bring down his government. These allegations were agreed with by a senior Cabinet Minister, the acting Minister of Justice in the New Brunswick government.
While an investigation was under way on that very subject, what did we note about the Ministers opposite? Were they sitting back, forebearing from commenting, waiting for the RCMP to do its work? Not at all, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) sought an occasion to announce that he disagreed with Mr. Hatfield, that Mr. Hatfield's allegations were wrong so far as he was concerned. That, of course, sends a kind of a signal about whether the investigation will be full and detailed. In my question I asked for an assurance from the Solicitor General that the allegations about whether the RCMP were out to get Mr. Hatfield and to bring his government down would also be the subject of the investigation.
What do we have in the answer from the Minister on March 5, found at page 2743 of Hansard? It reads:
Mr. Speaker, we shall have to wait until the report is received before we get into any such details, if in fact they are made public.
The Minister is the one who is going to make them public, or not. What I am calling for is a statement by the Minister right now that that report will be made public, substantially all of it. Maybe there are things in it that cannot be made public in that they identify individuals and deal with the force and with discipline, but certainly the Minister has to reassure the confidence of this House and the country in the RCMP by indicating now that that inquiry will be made public.
I would like to obtain from him an assurance that the inquiry has been extended not only to cover the way in which Mr. Hatfield was investigated and the way in which the Mounties behaved during the trial, but this very much larger and more serious allegation that members of the RCMP are a political force out to get a duly elected Premier and out to destroy a duly established government in this country.
I am not satisfied with the answers given. Editorialists across the country are not satisfied with them. There is a general demand from over a dozen of the leading daily newspapers that there be a public inquiry. Over half of them are asking for a public inquiry, and because of the attitude
March 11, 1985

expressed in the answers they are asking that the Solicitor General resign.


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, on March 5, 1985, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) questioned the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) concerning the internal inquiry by the RCMP into the RCMP handling of the Hatfield investigation. Specifically he asked the following questions: First, is that report ready? Second, if it is not ready, in what stage of readiness is it? Third, when does the Solicitor General expect to receive it? Fourth, will the report also cover allegations made by Premier Hatfield subsequent to the commissioning of the report by Commissioner Simmonds, that members of the RCMP were out to get him and to bring down his government.
In response to the first three questions asked of the Solicitor General, he replied at that time as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the report is not yet ready. It is substantially complete and, when it is ready, I will be informing him and other Members of that situation.
As of March 7, 1985, the RCMP advised that the report was not yet ready, although it was substantially complete and would be presented to the Solicitor General immediately upon its completion. Therefore, in response to the first three questions the Minister can only repeat what he said on March 5.
Concerning the Hon. Member's question about the content of the report, it is the Minister's understanding that the focus of the report will be the RCMP's handling of the Hatfield investigation and the specific allegation that members of the RCMP may have leaked information of the investigation to the press. However, the Solicitor General has no knowledge of the content of the report and does not wish to speculate about its details.
It must be remembered that it was the Commissioner of the RCMP who ordered this internal investigation to be conducted. While the Solicitor General supported him in that decision, he has in no way attempted to direct or influence that investigation. As the Hon. Member for York Centre well knows, the RCMP has a world-wide reputation for thoroughness in its investigations. The Solicitor General is confident that this high standard of professionalism will apply to this endeavour as well.
Concerning the Hon. Member's reference to the reported allegations of Premier Hatfield, the Solicitor General wishes to repeat that if the Hon. Member, or any of his colleagues, presents him with particulars of inappropriate or unlawful behaviour on the part of the RCMP, the Solicitor General will ensure that immediate and appropriate action is taken. In the absence of such particulars, it would be a serious affront to the long and proud history of the RCMP and the professionalism of its members serving in New Brunswick and throughout the rest of Canada for the Solicitor General to give credence to unsupported generalities.
Adjournment Debate


UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION-CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP AND FUNDING
Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I requested opportunity during the adjournment debate on UNESCO because the fate of the organization and Canada's participation in it should be a priority concern to all Canadians who value the United Nations. In recent times we have been made aware of major problems afflicting UNESCO. We have been made aware of the reactions by major member nations, particularly the United States and the United Kingdom. Therefore I directed a question to the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) concerning the policy of the Canadian Government toward our continued membership in UNESCO and our continued funding of it. I appreciate the contribution of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in response to my question. Also I appreciate his indication to the House that he is carrying on a watching brief because it is eminently necessary. We will benefit as a House and as a nation by more public debate of the issue, including this brief discussion.
I sense the Minister and the Government are reluctant to reach the extreme conclusion that Canada should withdraw from membership in UNESCO. In view of the impressive record of UNESCO, especially in its early years, at combating illiteracy and raising the level of cultural life in so many underdeveloped parts of the world, I share that reluctance. However, in view of the United Nations as a whole facing an uncertain future and that future being made more uncertain by threats to the ongoing viability of UNESCO, it is imperative that we treat this as a high priority concern.
We have not only the declaration of the United States which led to its withdrawal from membership, but a few months ago we had the declaration by Sir Geoffrery Howe on behalf of the United Kingdom. In reviewing the policy of the U.K. toward the United Nations, Sir Geoffrey Howe said that one organization where they had not been satisfied that value for money was being obtained was UNESCO. Also he indicated that they were not satisfied the developing world was getting value from that organization.
There seems to be two reasons for the general dissatisfaction with UNESCO as it is now administered. One is administrative and budget extravagance. This has given priority to concerns other than the need to raise the level of life in the Third World and in the Fourth World. For example, we have learned of the very high salary and standard of living to which the Director General of UNESCO has become accustomed, as well as the very sizeable senior administrative staff. We learned that there are more administrative and support staff at the UNESCO headquarters in Paris than there are UNESCO field workers throughout the world.
As well as UNESCO becoming like an inverted pyramid with most of the strength and most of the budget being devoted to administration of the headquarters, we have to be impressed by the reliable reports of the indefensible, ideologi-

March 11, 1985
Adjournment Debate
cal bias which has come to dominate UNESCO programs. Under the present leadership of Amadu Mahtar M'Bow, the program of UNESCO has gone behond beyond the parama-ters originally intended. It has become a political more than a cultural instrument of the United Nations. It has become the advocate of policies and objectives not shared by the member nations that have supported it.
In the face of not only continued protests, but in the face of United States withdrawal, representing the loss of 27 per cent of UNESCO's budget, some gestures toward reform of UNESCO have been made. For example, a no-growth budget has been adopted. Economies of about $20 million have been effected to close the gap left by the loss of United States funding. However, as the Minister's answer indicated, the Government of Canada is not satisfied and should not be satisfied with these efforts. We therefore have to think about what Canada should do at the annual meeting of UNESCO at Sofia, Bulgaria, next fall. What attitude can Canada show that will do justice to the significance, seriousness and enormity of the situation?
I am one Member of Parliament who thinks that Canada's withdrawal from UNESCO should be the very last option taken. There is still a mountain of ignorance for humanity to climb, and we need to lend a helping hand to our fellow humans as together we try to climb that mountain. UNESCO offers us at least the opportunity of offering that hand. I also believe that passive acquiescence with what has been tolerated too long is not an acceptable option. We should not be satisfied with any gesture of wrist-slapping by Canada that will make no significant difference to the attitudes and policies of those in charge of UNESCO. It should be obvious that nothing short of changing the leadership of UNESCO will be adequate.
Last summer the Canadian people showed that they wanted this country to have a change of direction. They recognized the need for a change of leadership and hence this Parliament has come into being. We need to have the same realism in assessing the future of UNESCO. There is very little serious chance that UNESCO will make major reforms in its administration or in its ideological bias until there is a significant change in the leadership.
I therefore hope that in addition to the watching brief that the Minister and the Department are carrying on now, they will give serious consideration to Canada taking the initiative, with other supporting member nations, toward requiring that there be a change of leadership at the top of UNESCO. Only when we have that kind of change can we expect that
UNESCO will show the kind of change that will prevent other member nations from withdrawing.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Monique Landry (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to reply to the question and to the concern expressed by my colleague for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse).
The Canadian Government is still reviewing its participation in UNESCO, as indicated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in his letter dated October 1, 1984, to the General Director of UNESCO, Mr. Amadou M'Bow. The Secretary of State for External Affairs has also told Mr. M'Bow that our final decision will depend upon the results of the reform UNESCO is now undergoing. In the context of our review, we are establishing criteria to measure the extent of the reform and the improvements made to UNESCO operations. Our evaluation of Canadian participation will also take into account the objectives, interests and activities of Canada within UNESCO, including the interests of the provinces.

The recently concluded special session of the executive board had mixed results. The need to reduce the budget by 25 per cent because of the withdrawal of the United States' contribution was not adequately discussed. On the other hand, there were limited successes registered at the meeting: agreement to include the U.S. as an observer; determination that the director general and the U.S. Government should negotiate the assumed financial obligation of the U.S. for 1985; consensus on concentration of activities in UNESCO; and finally, agreement that member states should not have their assessments increased as a result of the United States' withdrawal. [Translation]
The Secretary of State for External Affairs recently expressed to the Executive Committee of the Canadian National Commission for UNESCO his disappointment at the pace and the progress of the reform now underway. He especially emphasized the need to strengthen UNESCO as a member of the UN family in the interests of the international system as a whole.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 12, 1985