1985-03-06

Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is dealing the economy of Quebec an unprecedented blow by refusing to grant a subsidy of $ 100 million to Domtar, which was planning to invest $1.2 billion in the Eastern Townships, and especially in Windsor, in my riding.
The purpose of this project is to build a fine paper mill in Windsor that would be the most advanced of its kind in the world, and the project is therefore in line with our goals of generating permanent jobs. As far as employment is concerned, this project will both consolidate and create several thousand jobs. Since the pulp and paper industry is vital to the economy of the Eastern Townships and to the entire province, I think it is imperative that, for the sake of the thousands of workers in the industry, the Government review its decision as soon as possible. A refusal to grant the subsidy would be intolerable, and the Government would be ignoring the interests of Quebec and of the Eastern Townships. This is a very important time in the history of the Eastern Townships, and their people cannot and will not let the Government mortgage their future for the benefit of Americans or Bay Street.
I urge the Conservative Members in this House to act by supporting these thousands of workers in Quebec.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express the concern of many of my constituents concerning Canada Post Corporation. I represent the riding of Mississauga North in this House, a riding which has many new subdivisions and developments which are without mail
service. These developments are by no means miles from the closest community. Many are simply across the street from neighbourhoods which have existed for 10 or 20 years. These new subdivisions are completely equipped with paved roads, sidewalks, adequate lighting, and receive all services except mail delivery.
There is no reason why Canada Post cannot deliver to these taxpayers. The fact the Corporation has not been able to organize itself to a sufficient degree is no excuse for the failure to fulfil its mandate. While it is commendable that the Corporation has lessened its debt, the people in my riding, having experienced in the past few years dramatic increases in postal rates, wonder if any of that cost saving has been made through better management as opposed to simply jacking the price of the service through the roof. Other than Canada Post, no business, and I use the word lightly, would attempt to enhance its reputation amongst its customers by raising the price of the product while cutting back on service.
My first report from Ottawa to my constituents was rushed through printing so it could be ready for the Christmas season. In fact, copies were bundled and ready for delivery on December 18, 1984. Canada Post immediately sprang into action, and my constituents received the mailing last week, a mere 62 days later.


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


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I have previously described Challenge '85 as exemplifying prevarication, procrastination, and puffery. And now the alliteration is spoiled by incompetence. When the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) announced Challenge '85 on February 6, many people were skeptical of our ability to put the program in place by this summer. Now the Minister has sounded its death knell by moving the application deadline back to the end of March, just three weeks before thousands of students become actively unemployed. Officials within the Minister's own Department have said that it will be mid-July before the applications can all be processed. The program announced by the Minister on February 6 would be more appropriately called Cancel '85.
Then there is the Career Oriented Summer Employment Program. Application forms became available on February 21,

March 6, 1985
and the deadline was set for one week later, February 28. This program was equally poorly administered. On February 27 students at Ryerson Institute were told there were no application forms available, and were sent to the University of Toronto. At the University of Toronto students were sent to York University because no forms were available there either. Every day we hear someone on the Government side of the House talking about confidence. Well, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that students have no confidence in the Government's ability to provide desperately needed-


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


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, there have been many advances in the criminal justice system in Canada over the decades, but the plight of one group of Canadians has been largely ignored; namely, those Canadians who are the victims of criminal offenders. In Canada the victim of a crime has no real status in the criminal prosecution of the offender. Reparation under the Criminal Code is often useless, and compensation under federal and provincial legislation is inadequate. Surely a nation that spends millions on criminals should help the victims of their criminal acts.
A Nova Scotia case deserving of national attention is that of Lucille Hollett and her family. Their husband and father died in 1980, following an incident that resulted in criminal charges against two police officers of the City of Dartmouth. One was convicted of manslaughter. Four years have elapsed, yet the City of Dartmouth claims legal complications prevent payment of compensation. Litigation is grinding through the courts, but everyone knows you cannot Fight City Hall.
Reasonable and adequate compensation for crime victims is the responsibility of all Canadians. If municipalities and the police avoid clear responsibility on legal grounds, the law should be changed. In 1982 I raised the case of Donald Marshall in Parliament. Now I ask Parliament to consider the case of Earl Hollett, another victim of our system.


CANADA POST CORPORATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Postal Museum was closed on Friday, March 1. Canada Post knew for several years that it needed to find a new location for the Museum, but it did nothing. As a result, the Canadian Postal Museum, which is not only a national treasure but also a very useful museum for Canada's estimated two million stamp collectors, was closed. Canada's philatelic community spends an estimated $50 million annually to buy
new issues from Canada Post. Those purchases produce a handsome profit for Canada Post, a corporation which needs the revenue badly. Other countries run their postal museums at a profit by issuing special stamps to collectors each year. Canada could do the same.
The 19 people who were laid off last week should be rehired immediately. We should reopen this vital museum immediately. The shabby treatment of those employees, some of whom had up to 30 years' experience and were given only a few hours notice, is unacceptable, and a step backwards in labour-management relations.
A permanent location can and will be found for the Postal Museum when the Minister responsible for the Post Office and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. LaSalle) realize the need for this valued Canadian institution. I urge those Ministers to meet as soon as possible to find a permanent location. I also urge you, Mr. Speaker, to allow the Postal Museum to remain in its Wellington Building location-


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


NORTH AMERICAN AIR DEFENCE
Mr. Richard Grise (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, February 28, 1985, thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Wenman) and the cordial hospitality of our hon. friend, the Member for Nipis-sing (Mr. Mantha), several members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence had the privilege of visiting the military base in North Bay, Ontario.
This one-day visit, which took place under the guidance of Major General Morton, was a most interesting experience in the light of the information we received on the NORAD system and its role within the general defence plan for North America.
Our visit to North Bay showed how important it is to be properly informed about the need for increasing our country's security.
Mr. Speaker, such visits are desirable and even indispensable to provide the Members of this House with Firsthand information so that they can then better inform their constituents and the Canadian public.

March 6, 1985


THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) seriousness in suggesting that he would take steps to abolish the Senate, if he could get the agreement of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), opens up a unique opportunity in Canadian history to complete the victory of political democracy in Canadian parliamentary tradition. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he is open to the idea. The Prime Minister now has a responsibility to propose an appropriate resolution for the abolition of the Senate. In this he could certainly count on the support of the NDP, and hopefully, finally, the Liberals, if they can bring themselves to let go of the elitism and patronage that have been their trademark for so many years.
The Prime Minister should bring in such a proposal and seek the views of the provinces on it. When he decides to go ahead, let him not be afraid of any Senate veto. A senate that dared to stand in the way of a genuine Canadian consensus that its time had come to an end, would be a Senate whose time would soon come to an end in any event.
Failing action by the Prime Minister, Canadians can expect that the NDP will propose such a resolution and provide the House with the opportunity to act on this important issue. All Canadians are anxious to see just where the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition really stand.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 the consultative process enveloped all of Alberta. Some 230 delegates and Members of Parliament from every constituency in the province converged on Edmonton to present their views on the financial statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). The three Cabinet representatives from Alberta participated in the dialogue and provided insight into the national agenda of the federal Government.
The views expressed by the delegates were varied, stimulating, and well researched. This was the grass roots speaking. The delegates agreed that unemployment is our most pressing problem. We must eliminate trade barriers to create new employment and a stimulated economy. The Alberta MPs listened. This forum was an exercise in democracy.
The delegates urged the Government to respond to the commitments made on energy and energy development, to attack the deficit with great determination, to continue to trim government spending, and to stop the rise in interest rates for the sake of the dollar. Mr. Speaker, this conference illustrates
our continued commitment to consult Canadians in the formation of a national agenda for a better future.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, Members of the House of Commons and Canadians across the country can only react with dismay to the arrogant attitude of federal Cabinet Ministers who say they do not have to consult the public or the public's representatives, the MPs, on departmental policies. Statements attributed to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) in this morning's Toronto Star, and statements by the Minister of State for Small Business (Mr. Bissonnette) several days ago, reflect an arrogant attitude and a siege mentality on the part of an administration paranoid of opposition.
The Minister of State for Small Business told Members of Parliament on Monday that the has no intention of consulting either the House of Commons or members of standing committees on future changes to the Small Business Loans Act. These statements make a mockery of the good work being done in the House of Commons reform committee under the chairmanship of the Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). They reflect a growing disposition to rule by edict and public opinion polls. That kind of arrogance landed the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, it landed the United States in Vietnam, and it is going to land this administration in great jeopardy.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on February 18 we celebrated Heritage Day in Canada with a national luncheon on Parliament Hill, and we launched the one hundredth anniversary of our national parks. One hundred years ago Sir John A. Macdonald and his far-sighted Government gazetted Banff National Park as our first truly national monument, by protecting a magnificent part of Alberta. Countless millions have enjoyed its splendour since, and will continue to do so for generations to come.

Canadians are rightfully proud of the way their national parks network has been operated over the past decade.
We now have 31 national parks and 75 historic sites spread over all provinces and the two Territories.

March 6, 1985
Oral Questions
I had the privilege of working in Terra Nova National Park, Newfoundland, and Banff National Park, Alberta, under the very capable direction of Mr. Jack Nichol when our National Parks system expanded considerably. Of this we can be proud. I urge the Government, however, not let up on its determination to preserve our historic sites, our canals, and our parks for posterity.
I remind the Government of the powerful expression on a poster printed by the Haida people of the Queen Charlotte Islands, in describing their Duu Guusd Tribal Park:
Duu Guusd is not just a land we inherited from our ancestors, but one which we borrow from our grandchildren.
We cannot afford to jeopardize their future.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Canadian dollar hit another record low this morning, although it recovered slightly this afternoon. Mortgage rates were up by one half per cent yesterday, and consumer loans became more expensive yesterday as well. There are 1.5 million Canadians who are out of work. We have the largest governmental expenditures in Canadian history, and there is no clear idea of the Government's monetary policy or its fiscal policy. This is the longest period we have waited for a Budget since an election, in Canadian history.
Will the Prime Minister prevail upon his Minister of Finance to bring down a Budget earlier than he has already expressed, in order that we can have some direction in the economy of our country?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: My right hon. friend is aware, and in fact has spoken with sympathy, of the kind of situations he anticipated inheriting himself as Prime Minister. I am sure that he was no more pleased than I was at the heritage that had been left by our predecessors in this office.
I picked up where my right hon. friend left off, in continuing the job with the Minister of Finance of straightening out the public Finances of Canada and bringing some degree of sanity back to the process.
The Minister of Finance laid out a very important document on November 8 which brought about the largest single group of cuts ever initiated in Canada to begin the process of reducing the deficit, which has been followed by a number of
other initiatives leading up to a Budget which, I assure my right hon. friend, will be introduced at the earliest possible moment. It will be based on the fundamental notions of re-energizing the private sector and getting Canadians back to work.


INQUIRY ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF TABLING BUDGET IN MARCH
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has promised tens of thousands of jobs, and he has failed to deliver. He promised low interest rates. He could not deliver. He promised to reduce the deficit. He did not deliver. He promised to reduce Government spending. He did not deliver. He promised us a strong dollar during the election campaign. He did not deliver. Therefore, I would ask the Prime Minister if in the circumstances he could persuade the Cabinet, the biggest in our country's history, to bring down a Budget immediately, in March instead of April, May or June.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Liberal Party promised Liberal delegates at the leadership convention a great Liberal victory. He failed to deliver the goods.
We have started the slow and difficult process of cleaning up the public finances of this country. I am sure my hon. friend realizes how difficult this is, considering the twenty-year-old legacy we have to deal with. We have inherited an extremely difficult situation, I must admit. On November 8 last year, we tabled a very serious document and started the process of national reconciliation and economic renewal, and I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be very pleased with the Budget that will be brought down shortly by the Minister of Finance.


GOVERNMENT'S MONETARY AND FISCAL POLICIES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Prime Minister that the election is over, and I suggest that he start dealing with the serious matter of governing this country.


An Hon. Member:: Right on!


John Napier Turner: He used the word "considering" ... Considering the state of the dollar, interest rates, the unemployment situation, and considering the lack of confidence in the present Government, could the Prime Minister at least clarify for the Canadian public what his Government's monetary policy is with respect to interest rates and stabilizing our Canadian dollar? Furthermore, could he clarify his fiscal policy once and for all, and if he cannot, could he, with his Minister of Finance, bring down a Budget right away?
March 6, 1985


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to discuss the policies of the Government at greater length with the Leader of the Opposition, if he so wishes.


John Napier Turner: Do you want me to write your Budget?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I think it has been made quite clear what our monetary policy is. I set it out very clearly in answer to the questions last week and the week before. I set out, during the economic statement of November 8, one of the clearest definitions of economic policy on the fiscal side, removing some of the regulatory problems that this country has faced, identifying very clearly the areas of incentive to which we are going to direct any government resources, all with a view to increasing employment.
I do not believe there is any need to rush on a Budget. When we put down the Budget we are going to get it right, and we will get it right because we have had full consultation with a wide range of people across the country, including the Premiers, the people who will be represented at the national economic conference, and many others who feel they have a very important contribution to make. When that is done, and I would hope it will be done very soon, then we will have that Budget, and I am sure the Hon. Member will be very pleased with it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Next week the Prime Minister will be meeting with President Reagan. Already he has stated that he will change Canadian policies. Now the Government of Canada, will be doing something contrary to the wishes of the previous Parliament, and of the previous Government, that would support the star wars program. Is it true that next week the Prime Minister will sign a new agreement on the North Warning System that could change forever the balance of relations in defence between Canada and the United States?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to use the word irresponsible, but I know my hon. friend sat through a hearing of a parliamentary committee, a hearing that I volunteered, in which the questions were put forward and the facts were put forward on the North Warning System. There is absolutely no relation between the North Warning System and the Strategic Defence Initiative. The Hon. Member knows that, and he
Oral Questions
should act on that knowledge and not abuse his position as a Member of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE HEARING
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I can see the Right Hon. Minister is very touchy about it, because I wrote to him about two weeks ago. He did not even dare to reply. I wrote to the new Minister of National Defence asking for a committee hearing to permit some concerned Canadians to come to Parliament to express their views on this matter. What does the Minister have to hide in refusing to allow Canadians to express their fear that we will be trapped in a situation from which we would never be able to get out, as happened in previous administrations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what happened in previous administrations-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Diefenbaker and the Bomarc.


Charles Joseph Clark: -particularly when the Hon. Member who just spoke was the Secretary of State for External Affairs and a member of the Liberal government, was that the negotiations were continuing on the North Warning System. But the Parliament of Canada was never given the opportunity to hear what was being discussed. The Parliament of Canada was treated by the Liberals as if it had no right to know what was going on in national defence policy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We had the sense of responsibility to put the facts on the table. I would ask the Hon. Member to have the sense of responsibility to stop abusing his position as a Member of this House.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. He will recall that in 1982 some Hon. Members in the House laughed when it was pointed out that one in ten men in Canada beat their wives. Since violence continues to increase among the young and the old, as well as among battered wives, and since women need services and shelters which will provide them with advice and protection, will the Minister tell the House how many emergency shelters for battered women are operating in Canada today, and how many of these are cost-shared under the Canada Assistance Plan?

March 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the matter which the Hon. Member raises is an important one, a serious one, and one about which I think all Members of the House and society should be concerned and see if we can reverse the trend. The question which she put to me in terms of the numbers is, frankly, more easily answered through the Order Paper. However, I can tell her that there are about 190 homes, and I believe 63 of them-those are the latest figures which I have-are cost shared along the lines of the question she asked.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SHELTERS' ADMISSION PROCEDURES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I don't think that number of shelters is really worthy of applause. We must do much more, and I know the Minister agrees. When a woman with children who is battered, upset, and desperate, has to go to a transition house for shelter, she is forced to fill out a complicated means test, if the shelter is funded under the Canada Assistance Plan. Will the Minister negotiate with his provincial counterparts to improve this situation so as to remove this kind of needs test mechanism, so that there will be no impediment for women who are very vulnerable and are seeking protection from violence, along with their children?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, in terms of the manner in which the Hon. Member puts the question, she will recognize, as I believe she did, that any changes to Canada Assistance Plan agreements have to be negotiated with the provinces. I have mentioned to the provinces that I would like to meet with them in regard to the Canada Assistance Plan and other social issues, and that is to take place at the end of April. That will be our second meeting, the first one being a very brief one.
Additionally, we have said to the provinces that we are willing to look at the issue. It is not so much a money issue when a woman presents herself at one of these homes, no matter what her financial background might be, as it is an issue of violence and injury. It is not an immediate cost factor which she has to face as she presents herself to the home. As recently as today, four Deputy Ministers representing four provinces are discussing this issue with my officials.


REQUEST FOR INCREASED FUNDING
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, it may not be a money issue in some sense, but it certainly is for the transition houses which, as the Minister knows, are grossly underfunded. Will the Minister live up to the Conservative election promises and the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs in its report, and provide increased federal funding, funding which is very much needed for services and shelters, so that desperate families who have suffered from battering will obtain help?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member recognizes that this matter has been looked at. As I said, the trend is a worrisome one. It concerns me deeply, as I know it does her. We have had the Badgley report on that. There are some questions from some quarters as to the veracity of the figures, but apart from that it is a major issue. When she says that the Government identified this as an election issue and as an election promise, we did. I say to her it is for that very reason, and our concern, that these negotiations and discussions are taking place.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. He will know that on February 14 the House of Commons Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence held one meeting to discuss the new Early Warning System across the northern part of Canada and down the sea coasts, which was attended by the former Acting Minister of National Defence. At that time we were treated to an overview of the system, but there are many unanswered questions and there are other issues related thereto that should be clarified before the new agreement is signed. Will the Minister respond positively to the request for additional meetings on this subject that will affect all Canadians for the next 20 years and beyond, and will he consent to attend meetings of the Standing Committee of this House before that new agreement goes into effect?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member most of all would not want me, or any other Minister of the Crown, to dictate to committees what their order of business will be. I am informed that the steering committee of the Standing Committee will be meeting at 3.30 today. Undoubtedly that is a subject matter which will be raised. However, I would call to his attention, if he will study the record of the last committee report, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs offered to stay for as long as members of that committee had questions to ask. The fact is that Members over there ran out of questions, and the committee meeting was terminated. The opportunity was certainly there for a full questioning of the Minister at that time.


ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER AT COMMITTEE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, again we hit the stonewalling tactics. The Minister knows full well that the chairman called off the meeting. Why is the Minister welching on his Party's promise of open Government by refusing to attend any meetings of the External Affairs and National Defence Committee-the other was
March 6, 1985

attended by the other Minister-and bring his officials with him before the renewed NORAD agreement is signed? What is he hiding? In 1980 when this agreement was up for renewal, his own Parliamentary Secretary was the biggest critic.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I really do not know what the Hon. Member is talking about. I have received no request from the chairman or any other member of the Standing Committee to appear before it. I have a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I think, which will be responded to. I reiterate that my most recent information is that the steering committee is meeting this afternoon at 3.30. If they, in their good judgment, wish to invite me before the committee, I would certainly be very pleased to receive and consider that request.


FAMILY VIOLENCE
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs issued a report Violence in the Family in May, 1982. What action has the Minister taken to implement recommendation No. 9 dealing with the housing of battered women who live in rural and remote areas and who do not wish to move to urban centres to have access to the transition homes and the services that they can provide?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware of the answers that I gave to the questions of his colleague. I say to him that this matter of how much government funding can go into what is recognized by all of us as a very difficult social problem, is not a matter of simply finding more money. It is also a matter of what kind of education in terms of society can be provided. For instance, and I see his colleague questioning that, the NDP Government of Manitoba launched just that kind of an approach. I say that for all of us it is an issue which has to be dealt with reasonably and rationally. It is not a matter of more homes being provided or whether there is an unlimited source of money. That is obviously not the manner in which we can go.


NATIONAL TELEPHONE SERVICE
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, I would remind the Minister that dealing with things reasonably and rationally also includes dealing with them fairly.
[ Translation]
Is the Minister prepared to help women, as recommended by the federal-provincial-territorial task force, by providing a free national telephone service to assist and inform victims of family violence?
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member, as I said to his colleague, that these issues have to be dealt with between the provinces and the federal Government. I have indicated to him that we are willing to look at it. The CAP agreement in part covers that. That is the approach that has been used between the partners in the federation. I intend to continue that approach.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Michel Gravel (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport and concerns the manufacture of railway freight cars. The previous Government's lack of clear-cut policy led to the disappearance of thousands of jobs, not only in that industry but also in subcontracting companies making car parts. I would like the Minister to tell the House about programs and policies he intends to implement to revitalize the industry and ensure steady and regular production in the coming years.


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member for Gamelin that last year, apparently to offset job losses, the Government advanced the purchasing process in that sector so that we do not have the necessary funds to place new orders in 1985. However, such purchases are now made directly by the companies and, naturally, we hope they will follow Government policies, namely, contrary to what we have seen for a long time, spend the money we do have for very specific requirements.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Next Friday, the Prime Minister will be meeting Mr. Levesque, the Premier of Quebec, but he has yet to announce the agenda for their talks. Could the Prime Minister inform the House today what that agenda will be and whether he intends to discuss, first of all, the entrenchment of minority language rights in the Constitution and second, negotiating a supplementary agreement for native people in Quebec, pursuant to the ERDA agreement that was signed recently?
Mr. Speaker, I asked those questions on December 12 and February 1, but at the time, the Prime Minister was not
[Stage Direction]
March 6, 1985
Oral Questions
prepared to give an answer. Is he prepared to answer those questions today?
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think the Premier of Quebec has already indicated that he would like to discuss the possibility of a constitutional review, but not until after Easter. I therefore do not expect any talks on constitutional matters this Friday. In fact, I shall be in Quebec City for the Conference on Minorities organized by the newspaper Le Devoir, and I shall be taking advantage of this opportunity to meet with the Premier of Quebec for some talks on other subjects.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, these meetings between the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of Quebec are on very important issues affecting the future of the people in Quebec. They have a right to know the exact agenda of that meeting. In any case, will he assure this House that in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Quebec under no circumstances will he make a trade-off between the entrenchment of minority language rights with the signing of the Constitutional Accord by Quebec? We support the signing of that Accord by Quebec, but not at any cost. Will he give us that assurance that he will not make such a trade-off?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can see why the applause is so tepid. In Montreal and elsewhere, I know they are interested, and that is why I gave my hon. friend a clear-cut response to a question in this regard which was on all fours with the question he asked some three weeks ago. In point of fact, the Government, across the country and in the Province of Quebec, campaigned as a strongly federalist Party committed to the integrity of the nation and the protection of minority rights. That is why we were elected.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AID
Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for External Relations. As the Minister knows, we are rapidly approaching the end of the U.N. Decade of Women, and MATCH International, Canada's only organization devoted solely to assisting women in developing countries, is still struggling to survive. We are now almost at the end of the decade and MATCH International is barely alive. Can the Minister recommend
additional funding to CIDA to enable it not only to increase the over-all funding to MATCH International but also to increase its core funding from 66 per cent to 75 per cent?
[ Translation]


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister responsible for CIDA, I have already mentioned certain policies and issues with which I am particularly concerned. Considering my previous undertakings and my position as a woman, I intend to watch very carefully any issues that concern the daily lives of women, and I shall be looking very carefully at the particular organization mentioned by the Hon. Member.


ASSISTANCE TO WOMEN IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Minister that MATCH International is the only organization devoted solely to assisting women in developing countries, and that it is often used by CIDA itself for its expertise? Therefore, it needs help. In that connection, and in connection with her general comments on assisting women in developing countries, will the Minister assure the House that increased funds will be made available to CIDA to enable it to carry out the very detailed plans of action it has made for addressing the basic needs of women in developing countries, so that by the end of the decade Canada can report progress in this matter?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I know that 52 per cent of the population consists of women, and I have confidence in the intelligence of these women. I will find out what they can do, and as the Minister responsible for CIDA, I will encourage them to develop their talents.


THE BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Parliament passed the Bankruptcy Act in 1949. Since then, because of increasing problems with the legislation, there have been a total of six unsuccessful attempts to change its provisions. Can the Minister assure the House that steps will be taken at the earliest possible opportunity to introduce comprehensive amendments to the Bankruptcy Act that will protect employees as well as the suppliers and tradespersons who all too often are the real victims in bankruptcy cases?
March 6, 1985


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Hon. Member for his question and advise him that in fact we are looking into the feasibility of introducing amendments to the Bankruptcy Act. We hope this can be done as soon as possible.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is again directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. Since it is now perfectly clear that Domtar cannot accept a basement-bargain agreement between the Prime Minister and Mr. Levesque, and since we know now that Ottawa alone is jeopardizing that project vital to the Eastern Townships, I am asking whether the Prime Minister sees eye to eye with his Quebec caucus colleagues who promised last Saturday that, within two weeks, they would do their utmost to make sure that Domtar will get a positive response regardless of the circumstances.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that my friend would commend the outstanding job done by our remarkable Quebec colleagues. They have done an extraordinary job and I am grateful for that.
My colleague is aware that discussions will take place this Friday. 1 have already indicated our intention to be as cooperative as possible, but our hands are tied for very obvious reasons-we are shouldering a $35 billion deficit. As the Hon. Member appreciates, we cannot hand out that kind of money, but we hope to be in a position to be of some help and co-operate with the Quebec government and the company to finalize the project.


DOMTAR-INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET COMMON FRONT REPRESENTATIVES
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, the more the Prime Minister responds to questions ... To some extent, I agree with some of his Cabinet colleagues who say that the policy changes every time he gives an answer, and they are right to be concerned. The Prime Minister, who claims to be in favour of consultation, dialogue and what not, knows that the people united in a common front against his decision want to meet with him as soon as possible. I know that others have sent him an invitation. Will the Prime Minister meet with-


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.
Oral Questions


Jean-C. Lapierre: Here is my question: Will the Prime Minister meet with the members of the common front who are anxious to convey to him the representations of Domtar employees?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Member for Sherbrooke and others have told me about that request. I followed with interest-


An Hon. Member:: Yes or no?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the Quebec lieutenant from Newfoundland talking again.
Indeed, the matter has been brought to my attention and I will be pleased to meet with eastern Townships representatives at any time.


POSSIBILITIES OF GOVERNMENT ASSISTING DOMTAR
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the Domtar case. Today, Domtar's management made it clear that their modernization project will not go ahead without a federal subsidy. In view of the disastrous effect of such a decision on the future of the Eastern Townships and Domtar employees, and considering the fact that the Prime Minister does not want to give Domtar a blank cheque, has he seriously considered the option of providing Financial aid in exchange for shares in Domtar?


Martin Brian Mulroney: What shares, Mr. Speaker? The majority or the largest block of shares is already held by the Government of Quebec through several of its agencies. I do not know what our talks will be like this Friday, but we are prepared to examine any reasonable plan to try and help this project. I think we should bear in mind, and we have read this in the press, that Domtar is a very good company and that it made a profit of $90 million last year and $45 million the year before. I am told it expects to make a profit of over $100 million in the years to come. This is a sound company.
That is why I think perhaps it should examine its borrowing capacity and perhaps other formulas in the private sector that could help a company as powerful and as sound as this one to-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please, with respect.


CORPORATIONS-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I think shares in exchange for financial aid is a very reasonable suggestion.
My supplementary is also directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.

March 6, 1985
Oral Questions
Could the Prime Minister confirm to the House that his Government will approve federal subsidies for corporations where less than 50 per cent of the shares are owned by a Government, a decision that would not constitute an attack on the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec as was the case when the Bay Street Liberals used Bill S-31 to do that very thing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, since we, that is, the New Democratic Party and ourselves, fought with great determination against the Liberal Government when it tried to break the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, and we stood up together to defend the Caisse, I can give the Hon. Member the assurance that we shall continue this vigorous defence of the Caisse and other Quebec institutions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. A couple of weeks ago the Canadian Federation of Agriculture passed a unanimous resolution calling on the Prime Minister, the Minister of Agriculture, and the Minister of Finance, to treat the present financial situation in agriculture as a serious crisis in Canada, and demanding extraordinary attention and action. Last week the Government responded by cutting the estimates of the Farm Credit Corporation by 80 per cent. Could the Minister comment on that? Does this mean that the Government is not prepared to take extraordinary action to help farmers who are facing foreclosures this year?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, I have difficulty understanding the position taken by the Hon. Member because, indeed, we have taken a number of measures to this point in time. They are far too numerous for me to mention on this occasion, other than to say that they total about 42 in number. We continue to look at options and other alternatives which we may apply in this crisis. I hope to be in a position this Friday to mention another move on behalf of the Government to deal with the very, very serious problem of farm financing.


FARM DEBT-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the United States Congress is debating appropriation Bills right now amounting to over $1 billion to set aside or reschedule farm debt in that country. The Farm Credit Corporation has put proposals before the agriculture committee-more modest, of course, and appropriate to Canada-to deal with the farm debt crisis. Is the Minister prepared to bring forward legislation to reschedule some of this debt or to set it aside, as the American Government is doing for its farmers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member cites the American situation, measures which are in place in the United States. The latest information I have is that, indeed, some 8,000 farmers participated in that program. I draw the Hon. Member's attention to a measure which we announced on January 15 which brought down interest rates in this country from 16.75 per cent to 12.75 per cent, a reduction of 4 per cent, which will cost the Canadian taxpayers some $16 million a year for five years, making a total commitment of $80 million. Indeed, it assisted not 8,000 farmers but some 5,600. However, if we use the normal scale of one to ten, it is obvious that the measure we brought forth on January 15 is far more beneficial to Canadian farmers than what has been done by our counterparts in the United States.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that yesterday he indicated to me, when I asked him about the upcoming Shamrock Summit, that an announcement would be forthcoming today with respect to Canadian auto emission standards. Given that the Minister of the Environment will be holding a press conference later this afternoon, and presuming that she will be making an announcement in that regard, could the Prime Minister tell us what he now intends to ask of President Reagan with respect to American action on acid rain?


An Hon. Member:: Nothing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Minister will be having a press conference and will be sending out what I believe will be the most comprehensive and helpful program ever initiated by the Government of Canada to rid this country of the savagery of acid rain to our environment, and I think that is good news for Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have heard the acerbic criticisms of a very ineffective previous Minister who has distinguished himself by his lack of recognition in the field, and finally we have a Minister-


Maurice Brydon Foster: Where is your Minister hiding?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -a woman in this House who is not afraid to stand up, who has the courage to stand up and initiate a program of vast reform which is designed to rid this country of acid rain.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 6, 1985


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, given the preview, I can hardly wait for the announcement.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DISCUSSION INQUIRY
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the announcement is as good as the Prime Minister says it is going to be, could the Prime Minister answer the question and tell us what he is going to ask of President Reagan next week with respect to American action on acid rain? And could he tell us whether or not he will be asking President Reagan to give up the false perception that more research is needed before action should be taken on acid rain? Action should be taken now on both sides of the border.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if I were going to talk to a world leader, the last person I would tip off would be a member of the New Democratic Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Another Blaikie blunder.


Mr. Deans:: How about a Member of Parliament?


OLYMPICS
[Stage Direction]
1988 WINTER OLYMPICS-CONDITION OF SKI RUN
Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. International Olympic officials voiced their concerns in Calgary this past week about the condition of the Mount Allan ski run for the men's downhill event, and the lengthy hockey tournament scheduling which, if not corrected, could mean the pull out of six top European teams. Would the Minister tell the House whether these problems will jeopardize the success of the upcoming Calgary Olympics?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that some concerns were raised during the IOC meetings in Calgary last week in the area to which the Hon. Member refers. However, subsequent meetings with the IOC, and with the officials responsible for the sites, confirmed that these problems can be rectified, to the extent that the President of the International Olympic Committee, His Excellency Juan Antonio Samaranch, said-and I agree with him wholeheartedly-that the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary are indeed going to be the best staged event of this kind ever in the history of Canada.


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


PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING WITH UNITED STATES ARMS CONTROL AMBASSADOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I understand that Ambassador Paul Nitze of the United States is meeting with the Prime Minister later this afternoon. I wonder if both Governments have already determined the conclusion of the conversation, because the United States embassy has already issued a news release of Ambassador Nitze, and I quote:
My conversation with the Prime Minister was extremely useful.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: We discussed next week's nuclear and space arms negotiations and the U.S. approach to them. In those negotiations, the United States will proceed in a serious and constructive manner, but we all realize that they will be complex and perhaps lengthy.
Could we have the companion piece issued by the Prime Minister's Office of the conversation which will take place later this afternoon, so that we can see whether they match and are well orchestrated in advance?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry that the right hon. gentleman has not received mine; I put it out yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I have no knowledge of what a functionary at some foreign embassy might, or might not, put out. I am surprised that my right hon. friend reads very much into it.
All I know is I was asked by the ambassador, who is in charge of arms control negotiations with the United States, for a meeting this afternoon, with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am honoured to meet with him, given the complexity and importance of the issue of the Geneva talks on March 12. I know that the Liberals seem to treat this very frivolously but, for us, arms control and nuclear arms reduction are the most important matter on our agenda.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESS RELEASES
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I urge the Prime Minister to read that release, as well as the release which I assume is issued from his own office, so he will know what script to follow in the conversation this afternoon?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is widely acknowledged, in a non-partisan spirit in this House, that if anyone is following a script and cue cards, it is the Right Hon. Member.

March 6, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. He will know that today the Consumers' Association of Canada sent an open letter to the Prime Minister in which it condemned, as insensitive to the consumer interest, the arrangements made by the Minister for meetings between the competing drug companies to discuss changing the drug patent laws. Now that the Canadian Association of Consumers has spoken so clearly against the Government's procedure, will the Minister agree to its request to stop the closed door negotiations, publish the report of the Eastman Commission, and involve the public and consumers groups in any further discussions regarding changes in the patent laws?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure my colleague by telling him that I did receive the Eastman report last week, a very complex 500-page document. It goes without saying that department officials will need some time to undertake those studies. I can also assure my colleague that no decision will be made concerning this major problem without prior consultation with Canadian consumers.


REQUEST THAT DISCUSSIONS BE STOPPED
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister put a stop to the discussions going on between the two groups, because any agreement would mean watering down the present protection the patent laws give consumers?


Michel Côté: Mr. Speaker, the discussions have been initiated with a view to solving that problem and, until further notice, we are prepared to listen. Again I can assure my colleague that we intend to consult with Canadian consumers and protect their interests.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, March 5, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given that tomorrow the House will not be sitting in its normal fashion, is the Government House Leader in a position to tell the House what the business will be for Friday and perhaps on into next week?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I had a brief discussion with both the House Leader of the Official Opposition and of the NDP in which I informally advised them that, as the Hon. Member points out, tomorrow we will be having a joint session with our colleagues from the other place. Members are advised to be in their places by 2.50 p.m. in order to receive the Secretary General of the United Nations at 3 p.m. We will not have Question Period and we will not commence proceedings because of the physical arrangements necessary for this joint address tomorrow. The only business will be the address to a joint session of Parliament.
With respect to business today, the House knows we will be dealing with Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act. The second reading stage will be brought forward by my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), today. If we are able to make progress and accomplish second reading of that Bill, I would of course call Bill C-24, an Act relating to the COSP and CHIP Programs. On Friday, depending on the progress made today, I would call Bill C-32 relating to the Fisheries Act. Hopefully we will be in a position to have second reading of that Bill some time on Friday. Following that, it is my intention to call Bill C-30, the Bretton Woods Bill. As a back-up we will have Bill C-24 again if we have not already disposed of it.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that I will wait until Friday in order to assess the situation before announcing business for next week. As my colleague knows, the House Leaders will be having a meeting after Routine Proceedings in which we will have a chance to canvass other possibilities.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, given it is sometimes quite difficult to inform Members over the weekend what the business will be on Monday, might we get a hint as to what we might possibly be doing on Monday? I am not worried about Tuesday or Wednesday, but perhaps we might get just a little hint about Monday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just a tiny little hint. I think we will be doing the same thing we will be doing on Friday, just carrying on.
March 6, 1985


Mr. Skelly:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understood this was House business. Is there an opportunity for a question?


Mr. Speaker:: I had received notice of an intention to ask a House business question from one of the House Leaders.


Raymond John Skelly: I understood that the usual Thursday question had been moved forward.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has a House business question.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister is going to be meeting with President Reagan very soon in Quebec City and there are some very important issues to be considered, I wonder if the Prime Minister has any intention of giving the House some form of statement on how that meeting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That may be an appropriate question for Question Period but it is not a House business question at this point.


Raymond John Skelly: It sounded like one to me.


Mr. Speaker:: At this point.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, residents of my riding are aware of the hazards of acid rain, and they want a bilateral agreement negotiated with the American Government and enforcement of regulations concerning acid rain.


Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of railway employees, especially those of the CN, who are concerned about the issue of passenger train repairs and maintenance.
Wherefore the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to consider that what belongs to railway companies ought to remain with those companies.
Order Paper Questions



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Kenneth Gormley: Mr. Speaker, every year over 65,000 abortions are performed in Canadian hospitals. An overwhelming number of these abortions are permitted because of "endan-germent to health". The present law has therefore become a loophole for what amounts to abortion on demand, which has resulted in the death of thousands of unborn children. The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Criminal Code to restrict the use of abortion procedures to those instances where the continuation of the pregnancy would or would be likely to endanger the life of the female person, exclusive of social or economic conditions affecting the female person or her family unit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Copyright Act (private recordings).


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in moving first reading of an Act to amend the Copyright Act. This Bill will allow an audio or video recording of a work where such recording is made by an individual from a public broadcast for his or her own private use. The recording is not to be used in a commercial way nor sold, exchanged, bartered or given as a gift.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
2786
[Stage Direction]
March 6, 1985
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 80, 201 and 256.


Mr. Young: 1.	In (a) 1980 (b) 1981 (c) 1982 (d) 1983, did Canadian National Railways receive any complaints about excessive noise from rail traffic on its line between Jones Avenue and Victoria Park Avenue in the City of Toronto and, if so, in each case, what total number of complaints were received and how many were made (i) in writing (ii) by telephone?
2.	Does the railway impose a speed limit on rail traffic within the City of Toronto and, if so, what is the limit for (a) passenger trains (b) freight trains and was it increased in the period January 1, 1980 to December 31, 1983?
3.	In each 24-hour period, what is the frequency of of Canadian National passenger and freight service using the line in the period (a) midnight Sunday to midnight Friday (b) midnight Friday to midnight Sunday?
4.	Does the railway lease or otherwise permit the use of its rail bed on the line to other users and, if so (a) what are their names (b) in each 24 period, what is the frequency of such use in the period (i) midnight Sunday to midnight Friday (ii) midnight Friday to midnight Sunday?
5.	Will the railway upgrade its rail bed and tracks on the line and, if so (a) when is the work scheduled to begin (b) what is its scheduled date of completion (c) is consideration being given to restricting traffic in the period between 12 midnight and 6.30 a.m., until this upgrading has been completed?
6.	Will the railway erect fences parallel to its rail lines which run through residential communities to restrict access by children and others to those lines and, if so (a) when is this work scheduled to begin on the line mentioned in part I (b) on what date is this work scheduled to be completed?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows:
The area in question is from about mileage 327.9 (Victoria Park Avenue) to about mileage 330.7 (Jones Avenue) on our Kingston Subdivision, and all answers refer to this trackage.
1.	No.
2.	Yes. (a) 145 km/h (90 m.p.h.); (b) 97 km/h (60 m.p.h.)- except freight trains carrying special dangerous commodities, when the speed is 55 km/h (35 m.p.h.) as set by the Railway Transport Committee Board Order. The speed limits were not increased during the years 1980-1983.
3.	CN does not operate passenger trains along the line in question. Daily freight train service is as follows: (a) Monday-Friday, (b) Weekends (Saturday and Sunday), 6.
4.	Yes. (a) GO Transit and VIA Rail Canada Inc.; (b)(i) Monday-Friday 78, (ii) weekends (Saturday and Sunday) 54.
5.	(a) and (b) Normal railway maintenance work on this particular section of trackage was completed in early May, 1984; (c) This work did not unduly affect normal train traffic.
6.	CN erects and maintains fencing parallel to the track to restrict access in accordance with the requirements of the Railway Act. Any necessary repairs required to restore fencing in this area were carried out in 1984.


Mr. Malepart: Did the Prime Minister host a reception in the honour of the diplomatic corps on December 13, 1984 and, if so (a) what was the cost of (i) the reception (ii) the decorations (iii) the Christmas trees installed for the occasion (b) what was the menu (c) what are the names of the people hired on contract for the reception?


Mr. Len Gustafson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: The Prime Minister hosted a reception in the honour of the diplomatic corps on December 13, 1984.
(a)	The cost was:
(i)	for the reception:	$1,957.65(ii)	for the decorations:	$3,909.86(iii) for the Christmas trees:	$ 496.25(b)	The menu was:	Terrine de legumes
Cresson Chantilly Fumet de canard Seigneurie Supreme de dindonneau Choux de Bruxelles au beurre Carottes glacees au miel Pommes de terre mousseline Buche de Noel Coulis aux framboises Petits fours
(c)	No contract was issued.


Mr. Dingwall: How many (a) women (b) men over the age of 45 are presently receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The most recent information available is the preliminary figure for the month of November, 1984.
During the month of November, 1984; (a) 91,920 women age 45 and over, and (b) 146,340 men age 45 and over, were in receipt of Unemployment Insurance benefits.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

*
March 6, 1985


John B. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. John A. Fraser (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: 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.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I ask the indulgence of the House to hear me out for a few minutes with respect to Bill C-32, which is designed to amend the present Fisheries Act of Canada. This piece of legislation is specific. It is not, nor does it attempt to be, a review of the entire Fisheries Act. It is designed to meet certain difficulties which now face us in the administration of fisheries in Canada as a consequence of two court cases which were heard in the Federal Court of Canada in British Columbia last summer. Unless we make amendments to the Fisheries Act, the effect of those cases will be to make it almost impossible to manage the fisheries of Canada, except on one narrow approach, and that is conservation of the stock and nothing more or less than that. The amendments set out in this Bill are needed for the day-to-day management of our fisheries on both coasts. As it happens, these amendments are particularly urgently needed now for the proper management of the Pacific roe herring fishery. I will explain later or why this is so.
Before getting into the details of the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide Hon. Members with some back-ground which will be usefully kept in mind when I turn to the specifics of this Bill. In the Pacific fisheries we face a major challenge. Problems have developed there over a long period of time. Salmon is the backbone of the Pacific fishery, yet some salmon stocks are depleted and weakened from over-fishing and other causes. The numbers of two of the five species of Pacific salmon, the Chinook, more commonly called Spring salmon, and the Cohoe, are dangerously low. Herring stocks too are depressed in some areas. There is a serious problem of overcapacity in the Pacific fishing fleet because the fleet is too big and too powerful. It was built and equipped to catch more salmon than the coastal rivers can presently provide. Investing in this excess fishing capacity has left fishermen with a heavy burden of debt. With, as it has been put, too many fishermen
Fisheries Act
chasing too few fish, different groups of fishermen are competing for the same resource. Of necessity, government must arbitrate between these groups.
The competing claims include the demands of Indian fishermen. They must be reconciled with the larger needs of the fishery. Fishing has always been a major source of food and employment for native people and it has a special place in their culture. We must ensure that our native people will continue to enjoy their traditional access to the fishery in years to come. The competing claims include the demands of sports fishermen who are economically a very significant factor on the West Coast. Their claims must be weighed against the claims of commercial and native fishermen who depend on the fishery for their livelihood. When I refer to native fishermen, I am referring not only to our native Canadians who take salmon as food fish, but also to the very large number of our native citizens who are in the commercial fishery.
Within the commercial fishery itself there is competition for a scarce resource. We must reconcile the interests of fishermen using different types of gear. Moreover, this reconciliation of complex, competing interests must take place within the context of the crucial need to safeguard and enhance the resource itself. Mr. Speaker, as you will see, the amendments to Bill C-32 are needed to confirm and to clarify our authority under the Fisheries Act to make decisions reconciling all these competing interests.
Although I have so far spoken mainly of the Pacific fisheries, Hon. Members will find that the amendments in this Bill are no less necessary for proper management of the Atlantic fishery. The process of reconciliation of competing interests now in place to distribute the resource between inshore and offshore fishermen, and among fleet sectors operating in different areas, must be maintained. Clarification of the scope of the Act will confirm our current ability to manage fisheries, not only to protect and to conserve the resource, but also in the interest of fishermen, plant workers, and communities that rely on the resource for their livelihood. There is clear relationship, Mr. Speaker, between sound fisheries management and the social and economic health of the entire Atlantic region.
I and my Government have already taken steps to alleviate some of the problems which I have mentioned today. We have curtailed fishing of some stocks to levels that will help those stocks to rebuild. On the West Coast we have negotiated a salmon treaty with the Americans. This treaty plugs loopholes in Pacific salmon management that have cost both the United States and Canada great losses over the years. There will be a period of some difficult, short-term adjustments, but the benefits from this agreement will be truly long term. Right now we are in the process of developing options to address the other problems I have mentioned, such as the excess capacity in the Pacific fleet.
I am convinced that the resolution of such specific problems, and of the enduring problem of reconciling disparate interests, must be a co-operative enterprise. It has to be. These are not problems that can be solved by government decree. No one group can hope to realize its objectives to the exclusion of all

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
others or in isolation from others. The problems we have in our fisheries, and there are many, have largely arisen, I believe, through an inability to agree. I do not blame anyone in particular for that although it has been more of a problem in some places than in others. That problem is being successfully addressed by all of the participants in the fishery.
The House is being asked to consider amendments of two types. The amendments in Clauses 1 and 2 clarify and confirm the scope of the Fisheries Act within the jurisdiction of Parliament. They are made in the interest of clearer expression and adequate definition. It is fair to say that they will, by and large, ensure that the Fisheries Act says what many people thought it said until doubt was cast by two recent court decisions which I referred to a few minutes ago and which are both under appeal. Clause 3 contains the second type of amendment. It will permit departmental managers to make spot openings and closings. Although spot openings and closings are necessary for good fisheries management, under the Act as it now stands they require recourse to a cumbersome regulatory process. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, under the present regulatory process they are not convenient, almost impossible to implement quickly, and will not meet our present needs which are a consequence of the Canada-U.S. salmon treaty on the West Coast.
The Fisheries Act is a venerable document. It was passed in 1867. Amendments were made in the 1970s to permit protection and management of fish habitat. Apart from that, little changed in the Act for 117 years. Not surprisingly, as time has gone by, parts of the Act have become almost obsolete. New needs, new issues and new implications for management have arisen that could not have been foreseen in 1867, or even 1967. For instance, the establishment of the 200-mile economic zone in 1977 has given whole new dimensions to fisheries management.
One result is that definitions supplied in the Act do not always adequately reflect the realities of modern fishing management. Recently this situation has prompted two challenges in the trial division of the Federal Court of Canada. Both challenges succeeded and both are now under appeal.
The Fisheries Act itself does not clearly provide the federal Government with the powers for full fisheries management. Bill C-32 will confirm the ability of the federal Government to fulfil such a full range of modern day responsibilities.
Let us look at the specifics. Clause 1 provides new definitions for the terms "fish" and "fishery". More comprehensive definitions are required. For example, the definition of fish will be broadened to include marine plants and portions of fish. The inclusion of marine plants in the definition will allow the variance, for sound management reasons, of close times and quotas set for their harvesting during the given seasons.
The inclusion of "portions of fish" within the definition of fish is necessary, for example, to manage fish processing activities at sea.
The current definition of "fishery" includes the gear used in fishing and the area where fishing takes place. But management of a fishery or Fisheries has, in practice, long included the managing and regulating of matters other than type of gear used and the fishing areas-matters such as the inspection of fish, the activities of catching, the people who are licensed to fish as well as the places and times involved. Indeed, if we lack the ability to manage these matters, Canadian fisheries would be thrown into confusion. The amendments confirm our role in these areas.
The next amendments are in Clause 2 of the Bill. As it stands, the Act does not clearly assign to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans the power to manage the fisheries for reasons other than the conservation and protection of the resource. Fisheries management involves not just resource goals but also social and economic goals. Clause 2, which will create a new purpose section in the Act, makes clear, when read in conjunction with the revised definition of fisheries, the intent of the Act. It is to provide for management of the fishery in all its dimensions.
Let me proceed to the amendments in Clause 3 of the Bill. These are changes needed to refine and lend precision to our management measures. The essence of good fisheries management is control. If you want to avoid over-fishing you must be able to do this quickly. If you are too slow, weak stocks can be wiped out. Among the five salmon species on the West Coast, there are about 4,000 different stocks in 2,000 river systems, which is illustrative of the complexity of the question.
Under the Act as now written, our fishery managers have authority to open and close large areas-windows, so to speak-to fishing. However, to selectively open and close smaller sub-areas that might be referred to as panes in the window, they must get an order in council. This is a slow process and one that does not lend itself to the on the spot management that is necessary in our fisheries.
At the moment, a fishery officer observing over-fishing of a species in a sub-area often only has one option short of letting the fishing continue, which is to close the whole window. In other words, it would be to close the whole area. Some of the areas are vast and the result may be to prevent fishing in other parts of the area where the stocks are not in danger, thereby reducing the opportunities for economic returns to fishermen.
The changes in the Act made by Clause 3 of the Bill will give managers the authority to open or close any portion of a management area or to vary the size and weight limit of fish that can be caught.
I promised that I would explain the urgency for revising the Act by passing this legislation. It concerns the herring roe fishery and the Canada-U.S. Pacific salmon treaty. We have every reason to expect that this treaty will be ratified by the Americans and that it will come into force this year. In fact, it will have almost completed the legislative process in the United States as of today or tomorrow.
Among other things, the treaty creates a coast-wide approach for salmon management. Under its terms, Canada
March 6, 1985

and the United States have agreed to restrict catches selectively by species, by area and by gear. For Canada to honour this treaty, the management powers specified in the Bill are required.
The confirmation of management powers in the Bill will be welcomed in connection with the treaty. It will also be welcomed by fisheries managers in all the Canadian fisheries, including those managed by the provinces under delegation of Fisheries Act authority. It will be relevant to the management of the Pacific herring roe fishery. It is urgent because that valuable fishery will open within a number of days.
The herring roe fishery of British Columbia is one of the most intense and lucrative in Canada. In a matter of days-in a matter of hours in some years-tens of millions of dollars are earned. This year the fishery will take place against the backdrop of an unusual combination of circumstances.
Some of the herring stocks are depleted and as a result we have had to cancel the usual herring roe fishery off the west coast of Vancouver Island and reduce the fishery in Georgia Strait. At the same time, herring roe prices appear to be up over last year. In Japan, which is our major market, the prices are good. We expect fishermen's earnings to reach at least $30 million with the wholesale value for the product of about $60 million.
The prices are up and some of the stocks are down. This comes on the heels of several bad years for the salmon fishermen. As I have already mentioned, the salmon fishing fleet is over-capitalized, salmon prices have been low and many fishermen are in debt and some are bankrupt. Salmon fishermen who hold herring licences, which many do, will depend on the herring fishery more than ever this year.
In short, we have all the ingredients for a herring roe fishery of great intensity. Things move with breathtaking speed in this fishery. There have been years when the entire annual fishery we could allow in a given area was started and completed in a matter of 15 minutes.
Therefore, the power to decide on precise openings and to split the boats of different gear types as provided for in the fishing plan developed with user groups is absolutely crucial this year. Unless we clarify by enactment of this Bill that the Government has these powers, the whole management scheme for this year's fishery, which has been generally agreed to by the industry, might very well be disrupted by a further court challenge brought by a single dissatisfied fisherman. Should that happen, with the result that fishery managers could not divide the fleet between seiners and gillnetters, I might well be left with no option but to close the fishery, at least for periods of time. The concentration of fishing vessels in one spot could be so great that to open the fishery for even one dip of the nets would threaten to deplete the stocks. I would not like to have to take such drastic action. I urge the House to pass the Bill with due speed.


Mr. Waddell:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am aware that the rules do not permit questioning at this stage. However, the Minister has not used up his allotted time and, with the consent of the House, could he return to his remarks in order to make some comments? I know he is a lawyer and
Fisheries Act
Queen's Counsel and perhaps he could comment with respect to the difficulties that were presented to the Department, to the legislation and to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order. If there is unanimous consent there could be questions for approximately 13 minutes. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Minister. I am not trying to snooker him. I have before me the decision of Mr. Justice Collier in the Gulf Trollers Association against the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is a decision from the bench dated August 2, 1984, from Vancouver, British Columbia. What is the Minister's understanding of how those decisions affect the constitutionality of his power to allocate? Would that be unconstitutional or does he expect there to be a court challenge on it? How does it fit into this particular legislation?


John Allen Fraser: My hon. friend is a counsel of some ability from the bar of British Columbia. The question he raises is serious and also, from the point of view of lawyers, fascinating. May I try to relate very quickly to the House a complex situation? There were two actions in the Federal Court last summer, one by the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of British Columbia, and one by The Gulf Trollers Association.
Let me deal first with the Vessel Owners' decision because the facts are important. I will try to do this quickly to help my hon. friend. In the Vessel Owners' case what happened was that the Department, trying to be fair, wanted to put the small gillnetters into a fishing area for a day or two before putting in the big seiners to give the small boats with the less powerful gear a chance. The Vessel Owners', representing the seiners, challenged that in court. In the other case Mr. Justice Collier said that the Department cannot manage that way unless allocation were strictly for conservation purposes. Of course, it was not. It was allocation. Mr. Justice Collier said that the power to manage is not there under the Constitution, but he also left open to suggestion in both cases that the Fisheries Act as presently enacted does not give the power to manage except for conservation purposes.
You see the problem, Mr. Speaker, of a fisheries Minister trying to be fair who has been told that you cannot do that under law, not because the judge is saying that is right or wrong, but the judge is trying to read the law as he sees it. In one case, as a consequence, an injunction was granted.
In the case of the Gulf Trollers, the Department restricted the time during the summer that the gulf trollers would fish, which seriously cut the number of Chinook salmon they could take. At the same time the Department had failed to take any steps to be sure that the Chinook the trollers did not take got through the water, up the streams and on the spawning

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
grounds. In fact, many of them were taken by sports fishermen.
The trollers went to court and said that this was not fair. Mr. Justice Collier agreed. Once again what the Department did was allocate, but not on the basis of conservation because if it had been just for conservation the Department would have had to restrict other users of the resource from taking the fish that the trollers did not get.
Again, what we have in the Vessel Owners' case is a situation where Mr. Justice Collier's decision was on the basis of an injunction. The decision is not as complete or as full as it would be had the case gone to trial with full discussion and full legal reasons for the decision. My hon. friend knows that because the onus is not as high in an injunction application.
There are two grounds for those decisions which give me great difficulty. One is that the present Act is not adequate, and that is what these amendments are designed to correct. There remains another area of great difficulty for me as the Fisheries Minister: even with these amendments, it does not stop somebody from challenging on the basis of the question of constitutionality that Mr. Justice Collier raised.
Those two decisions of Mr. Justice Collier are being appealed. I have to consider seriously whether I speed up that appeal process and take a reference to the Supreme Court, but I do not have to make that decision today. The effect of this legislation will at least get us partly out from under those two decisions as they currently operate. It gets us away from the possibility of citation for contempt if we try to allocate this summer, and there has been some suggestion by one judge that that threat lies over us.
I must say to my hon. friend, frankly, and he will understand the legal reasons for this, that I still have a problem on the constitutionality as long as Mr. Justice Collier's decisions hang there. For laymen and for those watching the debate the difference is this: if I do something I am not allowed to do under the Fisheries Act, it is called ultra vires, beyond the powers given to me under the Act. If I do something which I am not allowed to do constitutionally, it means it is something beyond the power of the Government under the Constitution of Canada. I have to say with the greatest respect that it is my view, with no disrespect to the court, that on appeal there will probably be a different result. Otherwise, it would mean then that we could not manage any area of activity, it seems to me, in this country, unless it was set out specifically in the Constitution.
My friend has raised a very important matter, Mr. Speaker.
I have tried to address it as succinctly as I can.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker) has a short question, I believe.


Mr. Baker:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In this particular case it is not lawyer to lawyer, between distinguished lawyers from British Columbia. I am a non-lawyer. I am not a lawyer from Newfoundland.


John Allen Fraser: A distinguished colleague.


George Baker: Perhaps I might add that I do at times represent poor fishermen before the Federal Court of Canada. I have done it many times. I do so for fishermen who cannot afford a lawyer.
I wonder whether the Hon. Member from the NDP who asked the question was not trying to get the response from the Minister that he got. I was surprised as a non-lawyer to hear the Minister, who is a lawyer, on two occasions say that both of these cases were being appealed. The ground for the judge's decision, as the Minister stated, in this action by the federal Government was social and economic. It was not for conservation reasons. The Minister just stated a moment ago that the reasons for his action on the West Coast were not for conservation purposes. He then pointed out that the decisions were under appeal. The Minister has stated on two occasions, and I think the Minister knows what I am talking about, that the actions of the Department were not taken for conservation reasons. The justice correctly pointed that out in his judgment. He said:
I do not accept the statement nor the inference in this affidavit-
That is the affidavit from the Department, from the Minister.
-that the proposed allocation of fishing times in the areas in question was based on conservation or protection considerations.
I have a legal question for the Minister from a non-lawyer. The Minister stated twice, he admitted, that it was not for conservation reasons. He is appealing the decision made by a judge, a decision in which the judge said that because the action was not taken for conservation reasons the Minister could not do it. How could the Minister appeal the decision of the judge after admitting a moment ago that it was not for conservation reasons that these decisions were made?


Raymond John Skelly: It was a different Minister.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I think it was the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) who just said the reason is that it is a different Minister. I know he is being facetious. I see my two friends are fighting among themselves as to who said what to whom, which reminds me of another story which is not fit for this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: My hon. friend for Gander-Twillingate says he is not a lawyer, not quite. He dissembles when he approaches legal matters with the innocence which he has expressed because he is a long-time colleague in this House and understands legislation and the implications of it only too well. He asked, why would I do this because I am not directing my remarks solely to conservation? The question of management of the fisheries on both coasts is not just a question of conservation, it is a question of managing the fishery in such a way that various interest groups are treated equitably in the harvest of that resource. Unless I have the power to do that, the entire fishing management plans in the different parts of
March 6, 1985

Atlantic Canada which have been in place for many years would come to a grinding stop. On the West Coast I would not be able to make any allocations which would be necessary under the Canada-United States treaty. 1 would not be able to try to treat fairly the different user groups. Consequently, the only recourse I would have would be to come back to conservation, which would mean massive closures. For instance, in salmon we would hold whole areas closed until the last minute and when we knew enough escapement had taken place, we would let people in as a mop-up fishery. In Atlantic Canada, we could not function at all. The entire plan would fall apart unless I could make these changes.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am always delighted to address the House on fisheries issues. I must say that the fishing industry in the country is a very exciting one. Along with that excitement there are many complications. It is an industry with a great many variations from region to region, from zone to zone, from coast to coast. I include the freshwater fishery and the northern fishery in that comment.
In speaking to the Bill before us today, I must say at the outset that I have some mixed feelings about the proposed amendments. Of course, it has been said that amendments to the Fisheries Act were made necessary, as the Minister mentioned earlier, as a result of a recent Federal Court order handed down by the Hon. Mr. Justice Collier. As has been said, the decision basically indicated that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans could not discriminate or allocate against one particular gear type or another. For instance, it could not discriminate against gillnetters in this particular dispute over seiners or possibly sports Fishermen without well-established conservation grounds.
It is on those very same grounds that I express my mixed feelings. I have been involved in the fishing industry in one way or another for the past 25 years. I have played many different roles. I was actually a fisherman for a while. I worked for the Research Branch of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for five years. I was involved in the fishing business for another five years. Also I have been involved in fisheries as a politician from 1974 to 1979 in the provincial legislature of the Province of Prince Edward Island, as Minister of Fisheries. I served as Parliamentary Secretary, as the Hon. Member for Malpeque (Mr. Gass) is doing now. I probably have some understanding of what the fishery is generally all about.
There is a fair amount of excitement. I understand perfectly well the situation in which the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) finds himself. I truly appreciate some of the problems which are out there. As well I appreciate the efforts of Hon. Members in the House in trying to overcome the problems for the benefit of those who are involved in the fishery-primary producers, fishermen, processors and all others in the industry.
Fisheries Act
Over the 25 years I have been involved in the industry, I have experienced some problems with Fisheries management. It has not always been carried out in the way I would have liked.
I witnessed some very strange regulations in different regions which made very little common sense. I know the Minister's past work in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and so on. He knows where I am coming from when I say that when we pass legislation in the House of Commons or in provincial legislatures we often think that our job is done. However, that is not the case, as regulations flow from legislation. Sometimes those regulations do not reflect an iota of what we in the House of Commons thought we were passing. That really concerns me.
One example which comes to mind is in my own riding. It concerns a zone known as District 8. It is on the Northumberland Strait which divides New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. We have a scallop fishery there, as well as lobster, groundfish and pelagic fish. The fishermen from New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island fish the same resource; they fish the same area. In fact, in many instances fishermen from New Brunswick will come into island ports and stay there.
This example concerns the transfer of licences. It is a controlled fishery. I understand the controls. If we did not have controls, we would have too many fishermen chasing too few fish. It comes down to the management aspect of it. The Bill will provide a better way to manage the fishery. A fisherman from Prince Edward Island cannot purchase the licence of a fisherman from New Brunswick, although it would not exert any extra pressure whatsoever on the resource. It is a limited fishery. A fisherman in Prince Edward Island cannot sell his licence to a fisherman in New Brunswick, but he can sell it to a fisherman within the same province. This has created many problems in the past.
Another example of what I am talking about in fishery management was outlined recently in the editorial section of the Eastern Graphic, a weekly newspaper in my province. Again it relates to licences associated with the same district but different provinces. This is a fisherman's view of it. It is headlined: "Licence policy can be annoying". A fisherman from Murray Harbour, Mr. Herring, is looking for a tuna licence but federal regulations are preventing him from purchasing any of the ones offered to him. It would not involve any expansion in the fishery. He is not looking for a brand-new licence; he is looking for a licence to purchase from another fisherman. He stresses that since tuna are a travelling species, fishermen are going back and forth between districts. He indicates that it is a ridiculous law set up by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I cannot say that this has happened because of the Minister or any previous Minister. It flows from legislation passed in the House. Sometimes regulations flowing from legislation are implemented with very little concern about how they affect people, and we are not really accomplishing with those policies and programs the objectives we think we are when we pass legislation here.
As I mentioned, that Fisherman points out that he is not asking for a new licence. He is just asking for a transfer. He

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
says that fishermen are not the ones causing the flak, that it is the Government. He adds that it will soon lead to a lot of friction, as one can only take so much pressure, and that fisheries officials are doing things at the local level which should be done at the parliamentary level.
This illustrates quite accurately what I have witnessed over the last number of years. It is not only happening under this Government, it happened under previous Governments. These things creep in. Sometimes we are not achieving what we are trying to achieve. These are great inconsistencies at the management level. If every one of us was out on a special project, we may have different ways of implementing something within the regulations prescribed by Parliament. We may come up with different views as to how the regulations could be implemented.
This Bill increases the powers given to local fisheries officers. The process has been streamlined too much. It means that there are more regulations. Every time we pass legislation, there are more regulations. Management of the fisheries is totally at the discretion of the fisheries officers in some cases.
A study The Public Regulation of Commercial Fisheries in Canada shows the degree of regulation in the Canadian fishery. It is very interesting. I quote from the study:
Our study suggests that the Canadian tidal fishery is among the most closely regulated of industries in Canada and comparable industrial democracies. The federal Government exercises comprehensive control over the primary sector. The chief instrument is the Fisheries Act (with amendments and regulations stemming from it being made by Order in Council). Broad and sweeping powers are claimed by the Act, with more or less detail embodied in the Act itself.
That is one example. It is not just what I have found; others are finding the same. Bill C-32 will extend those powers. I understand the situation with the West Coast salmon fishery. It has to be managed a little differently than maybe the lobster fishery or the groundfish fishery on the East Coast. When there are salmon runs, gillnetters, trollers or any other group of fishermen can catch many fish very quickly. As the Minister stated, sometimes the season is only open for 15 minutes. You have to be reasonably spontaneous to manage that sort of fishery. The regulations to manage that sort of fishery should not be applied in a fishery that allows more time to make concrete decisions.
One problem that I and other Members from the Atlantic area have seen over the years is that fishermen are ill-advised or not advised soon enough as to when a new policy or regulation is brought into the Department. Sometimes fishermen gear up for a certain species only to find that the season is delayed or cancelled.
There is a difficulty on the West Coast that should be addressed. Since there is a rather short season in the fishery, how does one get the message out quickly enough to the fishermen? Radio could be used, but fishermen are not using their radio all the time. If they miss a broadcast, in some cases they could find themselves in contravention of the law by illegally fishing in a season which they thought was open but
in reality the fisheries had closed. That is an area that should be looked at.
The same study prepared for the Economic Council of Canada, The Public Regulation of Commercial Fisheries in Canada, on page 39 talks about simplification of the rules. I quote:
One cannot help but be impressed, indeed overwhelmed, by the weight and complexity of the rules now in place to govern the Canadian Fishery. We have described how this regulatory nightmare has come about. For now, we emphasize that in many cases the most honest Fishermen cannot bait a trap, drop a line or set a net without breaking some law. And the most assiduous and well-motivated fisheries officer cannot uniformly enforce the rules.
That is the finding in that pamphlet. It emphasizes what I am trying to caution the Department and the Minister about on this legislation and the management of the fishery in the future.
We have programs of enforcement. Sometimes the fishermen's associations, their unions or the fishermen themselves, if they had the money, would probably better enforce the laws, regulations and the intent of the Act. We have had the experience in Prince Edward Island and new Brunswick of a co-management program. It was extremely successful. It cost the federal Government roughly $150,000 a year. I know the Parliamentary Secretary commented on soundings and radio broadcasts and is in support of that program.
When the Minister was in Prince Edward Island last fall, he agreed with the program. He met with the P.E.I. Fishermen's Association. I am told that he said that the program has been very effective and that it is a fine example of co-operation between the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the fishery. I certainly agree. The problem is they need some dollars. This could be policed a lot easier, more economically and better than by having more law enforcement officers within the Department, it is their resource. They understand how to police it, but they have to be identified as enforcement officers. That program has been in operation for three or four years. It has been extremely successful. The program needs dollars. When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was in Prince Edward Island, he asked his Department to find some dollars. I hope he was serious and not only asks but tells them to find dollars within the Department to have that program implemented again for a number of years.
Another problem of regulation enforcement has to do with the lobster fishery. If you are caught illegally fishing lobster or with short lobster in your catch, you are taken up by the fishery officers, sent to court and assessed a fine. There is no question about it that no one on this side agrees with anyone taking anything illegal. However, the Minister has the power to take the licence away from that fisherman for a period of 10 days or longer.
I have seen a number of fishermen from different zones who have received a penalty. If he gets a 10-day suspension for 25 or 30 short lobsters, it is not because it is deliberate. It only happens rarely when a fisherman has a few short lobsters in his catch, if there is a bad storm or some such thing. Mostly it is proven not to have been premeditated; it is by accident.
March 6, 1985

When the officer picks up these people, he has to report. The fisherman may then be convicted. For example, if a fisherman in District 7 in Prince Edward Island loses his licence for seven days-and this happens in other areas of the country-he is not losing as much because the landings in the two-month season of May and June are rather uniform. It is probably 400 pounds a day, amounting to revenues of maybe $800 or $900 a day. However, if seven days are lost on the west side of the Island in District 8, almost the entire season is lost because catches with revenues as high as $20,000 can be lost. A bit of unfairness exists there. I do not know how we can get around that situation and manage the fishery properly.
I have a suggestion that I will put to the Minister today. If a short lobster is found under the floor-boards, the fisherman should lose his licence for the entire season. However, for every short lobster that is just one-sixteenth of an inch under the two and a half-inch carapace size, a first-time offender should be fined $100 per lobster. That fine should be imposed on the spot. That is fair to everyone. If that does not curtail illegal fishing, we should put the fine up to $200, $300 or $400; but we should at least make it uniform and fair to all.
Maybe a program could be worked out so that the Government could use some of the revenue from those fines to put toward more inspection and protection officers and to put toward the fishermen's associations themselves. There would be some logistics involved in making that proposal work, but I think that sort of thing does have some merit.
In preparing for this debate today, I picked up a copy of a Canadian Fisheries Management document entitled A Legal and Administrative Overview by David VanderZwaag, Professor of Dalhousie Ocean Studies Programme, Halifax, Nova Scotia. In this document he speaks of Canadian fisheries management. He noted:
Great administrative discretion allows federal officials to alter fishing regulations and policies almost overnight. Lack of legislatively mandated consultation process allows officials to chart fishery management policy virtually on the basis of plans of their own design, subject only to the advice of their own choosing.
He goes on to point out that two statutes bear the brunt of the management of the Canadian fisheries and that:
The Fisheries Act might be described as the hook, line, and sinker of fisheries management for it is the great source of managerial power over domestic fisheries.
Professor VanderZwaag goes on to indicate that the Act allows the Minister in his absolute discretion to issue fishing leases and licences and that the Canadian Cabinet also has wide-ranging powers.
There is no question about it. To manage a fishery and manage it properly, one must have powers but those powers that we give to the Department must be managed with a degree of fairness and common sense. That has always been of concern to me. When I see a piece of legislation that gives someone more power, I feel a little easy about the fact that the Minister in his own right has some control over the management at the lower levels.
Fisheries Act
In the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister can be kept terribly busy with travelling across the country and dealing with his day-to-day office routine. He has very little time to spare and in some cases gets very little help from the middle and lower management. That is what causes a great deal of the problems in the Department of Fisheries.
As I mentioned previously, the fishery is a very diversified industry. It is a very exciting industry but one which certainly creates a great many problems. It is one which must be managed on a region-by-region basis. When I speak of regions,
I do not necessarily speak of the Pacific region versus the Atlantic region. I speak of regions within regions. The Minister mentioned the window. I am talking about the pane. If the industry is not managed properly, it is the fishermen who bear the brunt of those decisions.
Over all, the fishery industry has been managed well despite all the problems it has encountered. On the West Coast we speak of too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We had a similar situation on the Atlantic coast. It is hard to attribute that problem to any officials or even to any Ministers because we must also realize and understand that in the last 20 years the industry went through some tremendous advances in technology. When a fisherman left the harbour to go to the fishing grounds 25 or 30 years ago, he did not have a fish finder. He did not have a radar system in his small boat. He went out with a compass and nothing else.
Today, the situation is totally different. A fisherman can catch a great many more fish. The gear is more sophisticated and that has put more pressure on management. That is the problem with which this Minister and I am sure any Minister who will follow him in the next 20 years will have to deal. This Minister will be judged as other Ministers have been judged by how effectively he does deal with that. He must understand the fight between the offshore and the inshore and how he can rationalize that fight. It has to be rationalized because we have to protect the fishermen. This legislation at least will hopefully give him the power to allocate two different gear types. That will certainly be of great benefit to his ability to manage in the future.
The Minister mentioned the Charter of Rights and its effect on the fishery industry. I certainly hope that he does not run into any problems in that area. I believe the fishermen of the country are too important to be given second-hand treatment, whether it is through legislation or the Minister's budget. I am sure the Minister fought for more money but he lost some money for small craft harbours and things like that. By gosh, the Minister will have to find more money. I know that this has nothing to do with the legislation before us. I am rambling a bit. However, I caution the Minister that those are areas in which-


John Allen Fraser: There's the guy.


George Roland Henderson: There's the guy right there. I agree with the Minister. There's the slasher. I am trying to put a plug in this hole. I am not here to criticize the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). He has been a Minister for six months.


March 6, 1985
2794 __________________________
Fisheries Act


Michael Holcombe Wilson: What about potatoes?


George Roland Henderson: No, the potato people are after you as well.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I'm not eating potatoes any more.


George Roland Henderson: I know you aren't. You would probably find something in them if they came from P.E.I. after those rates.
In any event, we will certainly be watching the activities of the Minister. We wish him very well and we will be helpful. We will not be criticizing for the sake of criticizing. We want to criticize constructively and make sure that the fishermen on both coasts, those who are involved in the freshwater fishery and those fishermen in the great northern part of our country, are well served by this Parliament. I give fair warning here today that we will fight and fight hard to make sure that the proper allocation of funding is in place in order for the Minister to do the job which I believe should be done.
This is a very important industry in that it has an opportunity to grow and expand and in turn create jobs. The shellfish industry in my area with the virginica oyster, properly managed-and this can happen on the West Coast with its gigas oyster-can grow. We have good management tools now and great understanding of how to expand that industry. That creates jobs. When the Minister is trying to get dollars out of the Treasury Board and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), he should make sure they know that if government is serious about creating jobs, it is the Ministry of Fisheries and Oceans which can do that. The Department of Agriculture can do the same thing-I'll bootleg that in.
You are indicating I have seven minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I could go on for a half hour.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No!


George Roland Henderson: I can see that you, as Minister of Finance, would not want me to talk in this way.


John Allen Fraser: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, to suggest to my friend that he might take a question in order to use up the seven minutes he has left, if the House would consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not want to set a precedent here. We did that for the Minister because we knew he wanted to get a few more questions posed to him. I feel we should let the Hon. Member finish his speech and just see how much time he has left.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot more to say on this fisheries Bill yet.


John Allen Fraser: We have him wound up again.


George Roland Henderson: That's right. I must say that the time will come when I will be pleased to ask questions and I hope the
Minister will be pleased to take questions in another six months when he has been a Minister for almost a year. We will see how his Department has made out as far as budget cuts are concerned.
I would like to speak about the area of national regulations and how they do not necessarily fit the situation. I feel this is a very serious problem and I would hope that the Minister would address it in his future management of the Fisheries. A very important program is the vessel subsidy program. Prince Edward Island and parts of New Brunswick have shallow harbours and I do not see many dollars coming out of the Minister's Department for dredging. Those harbours need a differently constructed vessel. The basic Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick style vessel will cost around $50,000. The regulations say that up to 43.11 inches the vessel must be ten years of age. If it goes over one inch, it must be 15 years of age. That provision was not implemented during the present Minister's regime but this is an area at which a separate look should be taken from the basic policy in order to meet the needs of certain areas. It depends on how the vessel is constructed as to the length of life of the vessel. We either have to have a type of vessel which draws a lot of water, which basically cannot come into most harbours in Prince Edward Island, or we have to have a lighter boat, constructed with lighter materials, with a lower draught and shallower keel, in order to get in. With the latter, our vessel will only last us for approximately ten years if it is fished hard, that is, six months a year. I cite that as an example of another regulation which certainly is not conducive to good harmony among the fishermen. I have received many complaints about that sort of regulation.
Clause 3 under (m) refers to "portion thereof'. When we go to committee I would like some clarification as to just what exactly "portion thereof' means. I suppose if a fishery officer were to board your boat and find a lobster claw or tail, he could probably take you to court. I hope there is someone in the committee to give us a legal definition of just what that part in the Bill is designed for. During the last couple of days of the season, some fishermen cook their lobsters aboard the vessel in seawater for their own use. They are legal lobsters, 2.5-inch carcass size, but if they throw the bodies away and are caught just with the tails, they could be unjustly punished. On the other hand, it has happened over the years that some people deliberately try to poach lobsters. So there should be some clarification as to just what that part of the Bill means. Is it tight enough? Is it clear enough that you send it out to a fishery officer in the boondocks and he will be able to make a decision as to exactly what that means?
Section 2.1(a) provides for the conservation and protection of fish in waters frequented by fish. That is pretty well basically the same as the previous Act, but Clause 3 reads:
(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.
March 6, 1985

The wrong person can take anything out of that. I will want to know in committee exactly what that means in relationship to the Act.
In conclusion, I would like to say once again that over the next few months we will be travelling with the committee to the West Coast and we certainly will be able to discuss further with the people on the West Coast their feelings towards this legislation. It will have to be passed, I presume, probably before that but we will be meeting with fisheries groups. They certainly seem to want this legislation through before the salmon season. The Minister himself needs this legislation because of the court rulings and in order to start the new season.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this extremely important issue. My friend from the Liberal Party who just spoke is, I know, extremely experienced and knowledgeable of the East Coast fishery and his speech covered that effectively.
I think for the time being I will deal with our concerns in the West Coast fishery. I will deal with what I see as being the background to this particular issue before the House today. I will deal with what I see as the real problem with allocation and talk for a moment about the role of the Minister. I will speak for a few moments about departmental officials and their role in the process. I would also like to remind this House, the Minister and those who are watching of the Conservative promises made in the heat of a campaign and which are now put in question by this Bill.
I want to speak about allocation in a number of critical areas as it relates to the sports and commercial fisheries, as between gear types and as between native and non-native fishermen. I would then like to talk about the west coast salmon interception treaty. I would then like to speak for a few moments about the herring fishery and perhaps wrap up with some remarks on fairness in a number of areas. I hope the Minister will take my remarks in the spirit in which they are made so that we in this House can co-operate and do a great service to the communities and people concerned.
As I see it, this legislation results from two decisions by the Federal Court of Canada involving gulf trollers and people who were involved in a chaotic fishery in Barkley Sound. From my reading of the judgments, not being a lawyer, I get two messages. The judge says that the Act does not provide the Minister the right to allocate in a beneficial way between groups. He then says that even if the Minister changes the legislation, the Constitution would strike down any attempt to allocate beneficially between groups. That to me spells complete chaos in the fisheries management regime, not just on the West Coast but on the East Coast as well.
I am certain that this House has two very serious problems before it. We must amend this legislation to provide an orderly management regime in the fishing industry. As well, we need to know whether that particular legislation, that is the amendments before us, will stand a constitutional challenge which
Fisheries Act
will most certainly occur if the opportunity presents itself. It could happen as early as May or June of this year.
So I am surprised that this Bill comes before the House at what you could call the eleventh hour or beyond. We have known about this particular dilemma since last August. This Government has been in power since September 4. The Minister has been involved with this issue for a considerable period of time. I know that myself and my colleagues have been asking for the legislation to be brought forward so we could deal with it, ask questions about it and hear witnesses. But no dice. The legislation is dropped in the minute the herring season is about to open on the West Coast.
The herring fishery is a chaotic fishery right now. It goes down in a very short period of time and it will go down even faster this time because quotas have been substantially reduced. There is a fishery out there worth $75 million, but instead of bringing this Bill before the House when it had the opportunity to deal with it. the Minister and his Government chose to do otherwise. They chose to drop it in the House and demand that we pass it in order to get it into his hands so that if the herring fishery opens tomorrow, he has the legislation. Mr. Speaker, it would be less than responsible for any legislator to deal so quickly with a Bill as important as this. This move by the Government borders on blackmail. You cannot get away from it and this style of operation must change.
This is not a simple Bill. It contains the guts of the business of fishing and allocates who gets what fish. Every sockeye salmon that swims down Johnstone Strait represents a ten dollar bill. The question is what community does that ten dollar bill wind up in? Is it Alert Bay or Vancouver or Campbell River or Prince Rupert? The Minister makes that decision during fishing season. We are talking about an awful pile of ten dollar bills, to the tune of millions of dollars. Last year in Barkley Sound the debate was between gillnetters and seiners. The previous Minister opted for one group and it was struck down in court, the judge essentially saying that if you open it for one, you open it for all. This is a vital aspect of fisheries management, a step in the process of redeveloping the fishery on the West Coast as we see it.
The important question we have to ask the Minister is not what is in this Bill, because this Bill represents the unfettered right to allocate fish. Quite honestly, I do not think it is appropriate that the Minister be given that unfettered right. But the real issue and why this Bill will not pass today or Friday, and certainly it will not pass the week after, is because the Minister has not bothered to tell us how the process of allocation will develop. That is the reason we will keep this Bill before the House until we have a reasonable explanation from the Minister.
We do of course have a new Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I personally have a great deal of respect for him. I know him to be open, honest, sincere and well thought of by the people he has served on the coast of British Columbia for many years. But I want to point to some shortcomings which should be addressed if the relationship in this House is going to develop into an effective operation. It was impossible to discuss

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
this Bill in advance and who will make the decisions, what mechanisms will be put in place to provide for an effective consultative forum in which these decisions will take place. I am tired of seeing many communities in my riding shafted because they do not have input into decisons about allocation. The money goes somewhere else even though they have depended on it for ages, before history was even written. That has to stop if I am to represent the constituents in my area and if I and other Members of this House are going to do an effective job as legislators. This Minister must be prepared to discuss the issue. He cannot simply drop a Bill in this House at the eleventh hour and expect one shred of co-operation. He certainly cannot expect a legislator with integrity to yield to blackmail.
Another point I want to make concerns political staff. This Government has appointed a group of political staff who have no experience. These people anticipate with some paranoia a bogeyman under every rock. This staff has to stop throwing road-blocks in the way of Ministers. This certainly applies not only to this Department. You can no longer sit down with a departmental official without a political commissar from the Conservative Party sitting right beside you. You cannot have a decent discussion with people on a day-to-day basis and 1 think that has to change. There has to be more openness if it is an open government. The Minister must appear before the Committee on Fisheries and Forestry soon. The Annual Report and the Estimates are before that Committee. The salmon treaty has been before that Committee. The Committee will travel to the West Coast. We cannot get a briefing from the Minister on his general game plan for fisheries and we cannot get the officials before the Committee.
I would like to make one more comment on the Minister which I hope he will take in the spirit in which it is intended, which is to lead us to stronger co-operation in the House. The Canada-U.S. salmon interception treaty did not come before the House. It came up in Question Period one day when I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) what the Government's intention was and he said that they had passed it that morning. There was no documentation in the House. We had no opportunity to study this treaty or to talk to the Minister before it was a fait accompli. That is not open government, Mr. Speaker. We do not want that style of government. We lived with that for a number of years under the previous administration and I think that style of government is past; but nevertheless, we have an example of that kind of government here. The salmon treaty approach reminds me of the approach taken with this Bill. We have no chance to call witnesses or to study it. This need not have happened because the Government has known about it since last summer. The Minister must change the approach.
During the election campaign, and even before, the Conservatives wandered the country saying that they would have an open government. I believe it was a sacred trust. The Minister and candidates on the West Coast promised a cooperative management scheme in the fishery. They said that
for too long the material had come from 1090 West Pender or from Ottawa. It is time that the people who work in that industry and the communities that are dependent upon the industry have a fair and representative opportunity to give some input. We no longer want a selected committee that does not represent the group fairly and that, in the future, may include defeated candidates. We need a group that represents that sector of the industry and in which the industry has confidence to input fairly.
We have a real dilemma, Mr. Speaker. All the data about the fisheries resource, the returning stocks, and the fishery for a given year is produced by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. No one is allowed effectively to challenge the truth of that data. In certain years it has proven to be absolutely false after they have turned away fish at the spawning gates to drift down the river and rot. From that data they make the fishing plan. There is input from a number of sources, but none which anyone would consider to be fair. Of course, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans monitors the whole program. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction and distrust. It is felt that political decisions are made and that the squeakier wheels get the grease.
The solution to all the problems is a fair consultative body which represents the groups with confidence. During the election campaign candidates on the West Coast promised that would happen, with the acquiescence of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). I want to see that promise delivered on as does every person involved in this industry on the West Coast of British Columbia. If we had any indication from the Minister that a fair and effective consultative body was going to be put in place to determine how allocations will be made and how management will be administered, this Bill would have a very easy passage through the House. Without such an indication it is going to have a rough time.
The Conservative Party promised a $200 million salmon enhancement program on the coast of British Columbia. The resource is in desperate shape. The salmon enhancement program would create employment in many communities which are suffering tremendous economic depression in that province. That promise was made by Conservative candidates and acquiesced to by the present Minister. In the Estimates we do not find the $200 million salmon enhancement program or the $100 million buy-back program that was promised. Rather, there is about a $70 million cut in the operating budget of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as well as a $200 million cut in its capital program.
We do not want that kind of commitment. I am not blaming the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans for this development. I think it has more to do with the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the fixations of the Prime Minister and his Deputy than with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Those promises were made, Mr. Speaker, and they must be kept in order to have an effective, viable Fishing industry on the West Coast.
A great deal of blame is placed on departmental officials, the people who work in the industry. I hear politicians, fisher-
March 6, 1985

men and people on the street blaming the bureaucrats. They are looking for a scapegoat. I believe there are people involved in that industry who have integrity and pride. They work against obstacles that I do not think many people would work against. The people who give policy direction to the Department do not back them up. Many times a fisheries officer in habitat protection has indicated that a vital area must be protected, only to have the ground chopped out from under him. I would not blame a fisheries officer for not sticking his neck out, knowing that it will be cut off by the Minister or one of his political commissars.
The departmental staff are loyal and take great pride in their work. They have integrity and are, by and large, a decent group of people doing an excellent job without being backed up. Time will tell how the Government will treat, encourage, and develop this group of people. They are definitely not to be scapegoats in this case. If the Government wants to cut the budget, it can live with the political results of that. If it wants to cut capital programs, it can live with the consequences of that. However, it must not scapegoat the departmental officials in that field.
A large amount of very valuable habitat is being ruined. One example of that is the CN twin-tracking project of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski). The Department of Fisheries and Oceans refused to hire one additional fisheries officer to monitor this extremely important river in order that the twin-tracking project could proceed. That just does not make sense. It is not a responsible way to husband a precious resource.
In short, Mr. Speaker, there cannot be scapegoating of departmental fisheries officers. They are an excellent group of people. I believe the reason we have done as well as we have with habitat protection and environmental concerns is because of the integrity of these individuals.
This Bill gives the Minister the right to allocate. An interesting situation occurred in the Gulf of Georgia because of the salmon treaty. Last year the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans recognized that the people fishing commercially in the Gulf took 100,000 fish the year before from April 15 to September 30. He said that he was going to cut that amount by 80 per cent, allowing them to take only 20,000 Chinook from July 1 until August 30. That is only eight weeks and is not even enough time to earn unemployment insurance. The people justifiably said that that was crazy. The Minister said it was important to cut the catch to 225,000 Chinook and to get the rest to the spawning grounds in order to preserve this endangered resource.
He did not do that, Mr. Speaker. The Minister said that it was for conservation purposes, but in reality they turned the whole catch over to the sports fishery. That was the intention. What I believe happened is that last year the commercial fleet took 100,000 Chinook from the Gulf and the sports fishery took 350,000. Almost half a million Chinook were taken out of the Gulf when only 225,000 were to be taken. A court case resulted from that. Today, with the salmon treaty in place, the limit, supervised by an international body and subject to/a
Fisheries Act
treaty, is 275,000, almost half of what was taken last year. We have an enormous expectation in the recreational and tourist fishery. We expect that approximately 100,000 pieces of Chinook, or half of that catch, will go to the troll fleet. I know that the Minister has received telegrams from the Province of British Columbia saying that tourism will be harmed because of his decision to sign the treaty at that level.
There are serious concerns about the expectations of sports fishermen. The Minister should have agreements to allocate fish differently such as to permit Gulf trailers access to another fishery or to permit unsupervised taking of Chinook by the sports fishery in the Georgia Strait. Furthermore, I do not honestly believe that the Minister has enough fisheries officers to determine what will be taken.
There is a serious problem with allocation. The Minister has not given all the details of the deals which have been made. He has substantially limited the fish that are available to the recreational fishery and to the commercial fleet in that area.
The second problem concerns gear type. The three basic gear types are seine fleet, gillnet fleet and the troll fleet. They are all attempting to earn a living during difficult times on the coast of British Columbia. According to this Bill, the Minister will have the unfettered right to allocate fish, but how will this be done? Some critical questions include which advisory group will advise him and how will he and his Department be bound by the decisions that are made.
Another area of allocation involves communities. The Minister knows as well as anyone that communities like Alert Bay in British Columbia have been devastated because of a number of economic set-backs due to the recession. While the Minister must have the right to make allocations, how will he take cognizance of the needs for economic assistance that the fisheries can give to communities along the coast of British Columbia?
The legislation will give the Minister the right to decide what gear type and group of fishermen will take what species in what area. Our Party suggest that there should be a mechanism to give people on the coast of British Columbia a fair and representative input into those decisions.
Another deep concern about allocation in British Columbia is the allocation to native people. In my opinion there is a commitment by the House of Commons and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to ensure greater participation by native people in the fishery. Traditionally, native participation has been approximately 20 per cent but it has dropped to 5 per cent. There has been a commitment in the past that their participation rate would go at least to historic levels if not traditional levels.
The Minister has made no mention of native people. He certainly is aware of the problem, as evidenced by his good words recently about twin-tracking. Although he knows the people and the community, native leaders are greatly concerned that he has made no public commitment with respect to allocation. The Minister knows that native communities

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
depend on the fisheries as a major source of economic development.
Let us take the examples of the Nimpkish band, the band at Bella Bella, the band at Bella Coola or the Sechelt band. These communities depend on fishing as a major source of expected income. According to the allocation provision of this Bill, the Minister can make decisions that will affect those communities for years to come. The Minister has said nothing on this, yet he wonders why we are not prepared to pass this Bill immediately. We want some commitments.
Native people, in their aboriginal land claims, are developing sea claims to resources with the view that they were never surrendered and that the Government of Canada must recognize those claims and deal with them. The fisheries resource will constitute a major source of the claim. How will the Minister deal with these aboriginal sea claims within the provisions of his allocation process?
The fishery has been the traditional resource of native people of British Columbia. In many cases it is the resource opportunity from which they have been deprived for a number of generations and to which they have a legal right and wish to return. Taking fish is a traditional right of native people.
The Minister has often been made aware that one reason why reserves along the coast of British Columbia consisted of large communities with very small land bases is the assumption by the people who granted those reserves that those people lived off the sea and its resources. It was assumed they would be given access to those resources in perpetuity. In fact, they have been deprived of access to those resources and at the same time have a very small land base with no other effective resource base to develop the economy of their communities and the expectation of a decent future in the country. They say that their traditional rights must and should be respected.
This also raises an allocation problem among native communities themselves. If native people on the coast of British Columbia are given greater allocation, what will happen to the inland reserves of British Columbia where there is a very large inland fishery? There will be an expectation of allocation on the rivers, mainly for sunfish for food and sunfish for escapement. That issue will have to be addressed.
I believe the salmon treaty has created enormous problems in the House. It has compromised our sovereignty and its timing has created problems with salmon enhancement programs. I do not believe that Americans in southeast Alaska can live up to the terms of the treaty or that Canadians in the Gulf of Georgia can live up to the terms of the treaty. Gradually one will work against the other.
According to the minutes of the ministerial advisory committee in British Columbia, the Minister said before that committee that that treaty went through Cabinet in 30 minutes. He said that the Prime Minister never read that treaty. That is also recorded in the minutes of his advisory committee meeting. Furthermore, in a conversation with a journalist which was put on the air, the Minister said that he
realized that there were many serious problems in the treaty but the Prime Minister wanted it very badly.
I suggest that the Prime Minister of Canada owes the House an explanation. How can he turn Canada into a doormat for the President of the United States? How can he turn the people on the coast of British Columbia, who depend on this industry, into a doormat? This treaty went through the Cabinet in the morning and we accidentally discovered it in the afternoon. We did not receive any documentation or details about it until the next day. Such action by the Government is completely unacceptable.
When the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was subsequently questioned about this treaty, he said that it would not be changed in spite of its problems. He said that he would take full responsibility for it. I suggest that in two years, after the Minister has restructured the West Coast fisheries according to the wishes of others in the Cabinet, he will become the Minister of Supply and Services and will no longer be responsible for that Department. Someone from the East Coast of Canada will be responsible and we will be faced with the problems that result from the decisions of the Government.
Let me refer briefly to the buy-back program. Not only did the Conservatives promise a buy-back program, but in December the Assistant Deputy Minister to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans laid a proposal before the B.C. ministerial advisory committee for a $100 million buy-back program. This buy-back program included proposals to buy one-third to one-half of the boats from the fleet in order to reduce its size. It included selling $100 million worth of boats for $40 million to keep a cost of $60 million. They were going to impose a landing tax over ten years that would earn $200 million for the Government. The net cost for the buy-back would have been a $140 million profit to the Government and it would have bailed out a lot of banks.
We were seriously concerned about the wisdom of that program, and sure enough the Minister withdrew it in January. In January he laid another proposal before his ministerial advisory committee. It was at about a grade eight level, a C-minus grade paper on problems in the fishing industry that essentially asked the committee: "What do you think we should do about it?"
It strikes me that that move was made in concert with the hackers and choppers in this particular Government. The $100 million buy-back was not in the program. Let them root, hog, or die. The Government was simply here in the business to save money. "Let them root, hog, or die", meaning the fishermen on the West Coast of British Columbia." It does not matter that they are suffering. We, the Government, are here to save money and we simply are not going to get involved in the buy-back".
That is my supposition, Mr. Speaker, but when I look at the type of paper that was put before that advisory committee, what other conclusions can you come to? The Minister should be standing up in this House telling us what his intentions are
March 6, 1985

about the buy-back so people can make some decisions about their lives in an orderly manner.
I want to speak briefly about the herring industry on the coast of British Columbia. It is a $75 million industry this year. Again, the quota is reduced from something in the order of 30,000 tonnes to about 18,000 tonnes. There will be less money for people this year. It will happen faster this year. We contacted every major user group in the herring industry this year and they knew the difficulties. They said months before they had made a herring fishing plan. Every major industry group will stick to that plan. We were assured of this by every group. They said that they would not have time to interfere with it.
When the Minister said it could collapse, he was wrong. The groups in it are prepared to co-operate and get the herring fishery done. Each one of those user groups to whom we talked said not to pass that Bill, that the Bill contains the guts of a fisheries management program. They asked who will make the decision to allocate fish to them or to the other users in the herring industry, in the salmon industry with other marine plants and animals? Who will make the decision about ocean ranching, about area licensing, about license limitation? This is the whole process of allocation.
This Bill provides that unfettered right to the Minister. That is what we are about today. That is what has to be decided upon. The Minister has to stand up in this House and tell us who is he going to consult. What are the mechanisms? Will they be fair? Will they be representative? Will they consider communities and people involved in the industry? All of that is absolutely imperative.
There are a couple more areas, and I put these up as a matter of fairness in the fishing industry, things which the Minister has to talk about before this House, before the committee, or privately. We have a situation called the "no net loss of habitat". The Minister has been around touting that his policy is a net gain of habitat. He thinks by allowing industrial despoilers of the environment to wreck a piece of fish habitat that you can create an artificial piece of fish habitat that will replace what is lost.
Let us now look at the Fraser River. I was born in a city beside the Fraser River. I lived on that river as a kid, and worked on it as a young adult. I know it very well. I did not get back to it for 15 years and I could not believe what had been done to it. The trifurcation program channelized the river so one no longer has to dredge it. It speeded up the river. This has now caused a stress on returning salmon. The pollution in the river is astounding. There are poisons that run into it from sewage, industrial plants and dumps along side its banks. It is astounding, Mr. Speaker. They say each one when considered individually is a small increment of despoilage of the river. It only creates a small increment of stress. When one adds the effect of the trifurcation program and all that over-running of sewage, it is no longer a small increment of stress. We can use the example of the City of Vancouver which has been told to spend $75 million to clean up the Iona sewage plant because it is polluting the mouth of the river. But every community up
Fisheries Act
and down the river is virtually doing the same thing. So we have pollution, poisons, and trifurcation. Then along comes the filling in of marshes because the land is needed. The land is near shipping and transportation areas. It is also juvenile rearing ground. That creates an additional stress on the world's largest salmon river.
What about the double-tracking of the CN? The Department of Fisheries and Oceans comes before us and says that we have CN studies and other older studies that say this is incrementally not going to be of great impact. But the Department of Fisheries and Oceans did not look at the fact that CP will want to double-track. It did not look at the cumulative load on that whole river as more and more and more things take place.
You cannot replace that kind of loss of habitat, Mr. Speaker, because we will not know that it happened until way in the future as that stress builds and reacts on the species. They may fill in a small juvenile rearing area. That is great, but the total impact on that river is substantial and it is continuing to get worse every year.
Then there is the Quinsam coal project, a no net loss of habitat. The company intends to build an open pit coal mine at the head of a major hatchery on the Quinsam River. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans said that it did not have the staff to monitor the effects of this coal mine. The people said they did not really know what was going on because they will not be given the staff or the resources. The Department said that if the mine does not wipe out that hatchery or place an enormous stress on the river, it will certainly not be because the Department was able to detect it.
Next is the Rivers Inlet which is one of the largest Sockeye areas on the coast of British Columbia. Rivers Inlet and the Owikeno Lake area are being logged out. The rivers and streams behind in which salmon spawn and rear are affected. This Department will not become involved in integrated resource management studies because I do not think it likes to hear the results. I do not think it has the resources to enforce the requirements anyway to protect those habitats, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister has known that loss of habitat, the invention of Peter Pearce, is not applicable. It is not effective. It is a complete sell-out of the environment of British Columbia. It must stop. Even though the Department is operating on that basis, the Minister's deputy admitted that the Department has not even developed that policy.
Another point is fairness concerning small craft harbours. British Columbia out of the small craft harbours budget will get from $2 million to $3 million this year. It generally gets $6 million. Six million dollars hardly paints and maintains the wharves. We need a priorized list of the harbours that are going to receive money in the order that it becomes available. We need a decent budget.
On the West Coast of Canada fishermen pay for every foot of moorage no matter what they tie to the dock. It is grossly unfair that this Government in cost recovery wants to increase

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
that from 200 per cent to 500 per cent of an already expensive cost in a diminished economy. Yet their brothers and sisters on the East Coast get free moorage for quite a few categories of vessels. That is grossly unfair. I think we have to give the same consideration to our fishermen on the West Coast as that provided to our fishermen on the East Coast.
My last point concerns insurance. In this philosophical fixation which the Conservative Government has about the private sector and the sanctity of the free market, fishermen and vessel owners on both coasts have a serious problem with insurance. I think it is imperative that this Government not give up coverage of those fishing vessels. Without it there will be severe difficulty. Some people will sail without insurance. Some people will run into extreme difficulty without it. I understand this matter is before the Minister now. Those groups to whom I have spoken in the fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia are absolutely adamant that that fishing vessel insurance program stay in place and not be changed and that it is a matter of serious concern. If the Minister would like to hear that from user groups themselves, they are prepared to come to Ottawa now.
In summary, I think this Bill before us today is critical. We will over the coming days debate it. I think the style of the Minister has got to change in order to develop openness and some element of trust so we can deal expeditiously with a Bill like this, and that we also have time to study it fairly. What happened in that salmon treaty process is intolerable, but the good news is that the herring fishing will go ahead without this particular legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I should like to draw to the attention of the House that we are now entering the second phase of the debate, which means that according to Standing Order 35(2) Hon. Members will be allowed to make 20-minute speeches, followed by the 10-minute question and comment period.


Mr. Morrisey Johnson (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I was certainly pleased to hear the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) close his remarks on a positive note when he spoke about the herring fishery. Everything else he said about the remarks of the Minister was very negative.


An Hon. Member:: And he was right on.


Morrissey Johnson: I do not believe he was in all cases. He suggested that the Minister did not speak about the native people. I happen to have a copy of the Minister's speech-and I heard him-and right on the first page he spoke about native people, Indian people. I suggest the Hon. Member should look at Hansard at the first opportunity to see what the Minister said.
I have no difficulty in expressing my support for the amendments to the Fisheries Act proposed in Bill C-32. As most Hon. Members in the House know, the fishery in my province
has been, is and always will be the main industry. In his remarks the Minister said that the passage of this Bill was a matter of particular urgency on the Pacific coast. He also said that the issues addressed by these amendments are very live issues in the Canadian fishery. I concur, and I would like to add that they are crucial in the Atlantic region.
One of the objectives of the Bill is to ensure that the objective of fisheries management does not end with the protection and conservation of the resource. We want to protect stocks, the raw material base of the fishery, but not as an end in itself. We do so in order to realize certain benefits for society. We cannot ignore social and economic situations in our management of the fishery. They are part of the reality of the fishing business. We manage the fishery for the benefit of fishermen, plant workers and fishing communities. In fact, we manage it in the interests of the country as a whole. Whether we are talking about controlling fishing effort or stipulating a certain net mesh size in a given fishery, or allocating fish between fleet sectors, the principle is the same. I suspect this was realized in 1867, and that the only reason it was not made more explicit at the time was that it seemed self-evident. I think it is safe to say that the people who drafted the original Act knew why and on whose behalf they wanted the stocks protected.
Certainly we in Atlantic Canada, the region in which the Canadian fishing industry was born, have never had any reason to be confused about the relationship of good fisheries management to the social and economic health of our region. If we were ever tempted to forget it, we received painful reminders. I am thinking, for instance, of the depletion of groundfish stock due to over-fishing in the days before the 200-mile limit was established.
Even today, with Canadian jurisdiction in place, we know that the health and productivity of the fisheries depend on our ability to exercise the comprehensive management powers which these amendments clarify. For several years now groundfish stocks have been managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the basis of a comprehensive annual plan. Under this plan, quotas are set and portions of that total are assigned to vessels of different types-so much for vessels over 100 feet, so much for vessels between 65 and 100 feet, so much for vessels using fixed and mobile gear, and so on.
That approach has been further refined. In the groundfish trawler fleet and the herring purse seiner fleet, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans now make allocations of the total quota, not just to fleets but to individuals and companies. This approach to some extent is also for smaller boats, especially in the Gulf region. These measures are basic to the management of the Atlantic fisheries. If the act as it stands does not make that authority clear, if it is likely to be challenged on the basis of inexplicit language, the sooner we remove the ambiguities the better. I urge early consideration and passage of the Bill by the House.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity beforehand to read the speech of the Minister. I should like to direct a question to the Hon. Member concerning the basis of the
March 6, 1985

allocation to native people. A very serious problem arose at the mouth of the Qualicum River where there is a large terminal fishery and a huge fleet. At the end of the year fishermen who want one last crack at earning an income, be they gillnetters or seiners, are at the mouth of that river trying to catch fish on their way out. It is my understanding that last year the Minister of Fisheries wanted to allocate surplus fish to an Indian band but he could not do it because the law had changed. Therefore he decided to turn the surplus fish over to Crown Assets Disposal to get rid of them and only allowed one bidder, the Indian band, and it took the fish.
That is a very unusual procedure, but nevertheless the question becomes: Should the fish have gone to the commercial fishery or to the Indian band? Without making a judgment on whom they should go to, I want to illustrate that allocation is a complex problem. The Minister never mentioned a word about the nature of allocation to native people. They have serious complaints and serious economic problems, yet he rose and made some fairly euphemistic statements. There was not a shred of content upon which they could base any serious hope. Perhaps the previous speaker might want to comment on this.


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, it is very evident from the fact that the Minister introduced amendments to the Act that he is aware he did not have the power as described by the Hon. Member. This is the reason he brought in those amendments, so that he would have the power to make allocations to people from different regions. I think that is very evident. I am sure the Minister is more familiar with the incident to which the Hon. Member referred than I am, coming from the East Coast.
I want to assure him that when I am on the West Coast very shortly with the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I will have an opportunity to learn more about that part of the country. I am sure that his colleagues from his Party will endeavour to tell me all about their province so that I will be more informed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, a very short question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I always notice you say to me "a very short question".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The only reason I mention that is no matter what I say, the Hon. Member seems to take three or four minutes. I would hope that he would endeavour to help because there are other people who would like to ask questions. Therefore, if I do get a short statement, question or comment, somebody else may be able to ask a question.


George Baker: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, it is the quality of the question that I ask. The hon. gentleman who just spoke is very knowledgeable of the fishery. There is not a person in this Chamber who would deny that. I want to ask him a basic
Fisheries Act
question. This Bill is all about a problem that is basic between gillnetters and seiners. There is a basic question here. No matter what part of the country you go to, you find a dispute between gillnetters and seiners, gillnets with the nets down to the bottom, anchored on top of the water, and the seiners with the big net that captures the fish. Why does the Hon. Member think there is such a dispute? Does he side with the finding sometimes of the scientists which is directly contrary to the opinions of both the seiners and the gillnetters? There are really two questions. Can he just explain to the House why we have this conflict?


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps some people in my riding will be offended by what I am about to say, but I think the reason there are conflicts between people fishing on a dragger and people fishing with gillnets is that humans have a tendency to be a little bit jealous, and because the regulations permitting people to set gear in certain areas conflict with the ability of other people to fish. If I were to speak about gillnetting, which I have done, people set out their gillnets, a draggerman comes along and he wants to fish because it is good fishing ground. Sometimes he might inadvertently take some of the fixed gear away, not because he wants to hurt his fellow fisherman, but because sometimes as a result of sea conditions and visibility he is not able to see the markers for the fixed gear. I am sure that those problems will always exist. It will be impossible for any Minister of Fisheries to be able to say that gear will be fixed there, that everybody has to stay so many miles away from it and people will not encroach on that fixed gear.
On the other question, it would be difficult for me to condemn scientists who sometimes may make errors in setting the amount of fish allowed to be caught, the quotas for certain species. I am sure they have made mistakes. I am sure that fishermen overestimate the stocks too. There will be friction when there are more and more people depending on the fishery for their livelihood and there is not enough of that specific type of fish to fill the needs of all the fishermen. They are going to be critical of the scientists who sometimes make recommendations to the Minister when he is setting the allocation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate on a short supplementary question.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, a very short one. In the opening of his last answer, the Hon. Member said that he was going to say something that perhaps some fishermen will not like. I am now going to ask him to say something that perhaps the Minister will not like. Did he suspect that the federal Department of Fisheries did not have the authority to do what it did under the existing Act, thereby giving rise to this legislation today? In his vast experience, did he suspect that? Did his cohorts, his fellow skippers, mention to him that perhaps the federal Department of Fisheries was acting outside of the law and that it should be tested in court?


Morrissey Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I would be offending the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
Fraser) if I gave my hon. friend a truthful answer, which I am sure he wants, but I would certainly be criticizing previous Ministers of Fisheries. Yes, I did suspect that the Minister of Fisheries did not have authority. In fact, I had been asked on a number of occasions if I would be willing to be the scapegoat, to go out and catch fish against the law, because a lot of people believed it. I am glad that the Minister has brought forward this amendment.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I want to say that I am pleased that the Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Concep-tion (Mr. Johnson) has participated in this debate. I do not know if we have ever had a practising fisherman from my province, but we now have one in the Chamber. I may say, I hope without offence to my colleague from Gander-Twillin-gate (Mr. Baker), that not only is he and was he an expert fisherman, but he is fast becoming fast on his feet in this Chamber and on his way to becoming a parliamentarian. I think my friend from Gander-Twillingate would agree.
Having said that, I have 20 minutes in which to put some things on the record that I think are very important. Basically, this amendment gives the power to the Government to do presumably what it has been doing. It reminds me of a quote from Pope, talking about beauty. He said:
True wit is Nature to advantage dress'd,
What oft was thought, but ne'er so well express'd.
I do not know how beautiful what we have from the Minister today is, but it is what was often thought "but n'er so well express'd".
What is happening here, and we must be aware of this, is that this amendment is about power. It is an allocation of power to officials. The Minister said in his remarks that previously officials would have to get order in council approval for certain closures, and that is true. That will no longer be the case. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) is already the most powerful Minister in the Government in terms of the Act which he administers and for which he is responsible. He is now enshrining in law more power. That is good if that power is used well. It is good if we have good officials and good bureaucrats, and we do.
I want to take the time to say that the officials and the people who work in the Department of Fisheries here in Ottawa and in my region have been faithful, competent and good public servants. However, that does not say that at some point there may be officials who are over-zealous and insensitive. There has to be some sort of protection against that over-zealousness and insensitivity. We in this country are not ruled by officials and bureaucrats. We are ruled by a Government which is responsible to people. As long as we have good officials, this law is good.
We are talking about power, not only over fish and fish stocks and allocations, but power over people's lives. The island of Newfoundland was settled as a result of the fish stocks around our shore. Our culture and our way of life is built on the fishery. It is of no mean importance to us. It is of fundamental importance. This House should recognize that what we are talking about here today is not simply power over fish stocks and over fish processing. It is power over people's lives and over communities. That should be clearly understood. It is how that power is shared that is important to me.
This amendment gives the Department more power. It gives it power to open and close sections and power to allocate fish stocks to provinces. It gives the Department the right in law to allocate resources from one area to people who live in another area. As I say, it is important to us how this power is used.
The Premier of Newfoundland has heretofore put in very graphic and dramatic terms the fact that the northern cod stocks of the Hamilton Banks off the coast of Labrador and the northern coast of Newfoundland are very important to Newfoundland. He has claimed it is of such fundamental importance to us that he has said from time to time that it is more important to us than the oil off our shores. If that is the case, then he wants an assurance that those northern cod stocks are to be the priority of Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen. However, other people from other provinces fish in that area as well. Newfoundland fishermen and the Premier are very concerned that their priority be adhered to.
It is true that Newfoundlanders fish off the Scotian shelf. We do not want to balkanize the fishery in Canada. I point this out because I think it is very important in this debate that we understand that the possibility for balkanization exists. I will want an assurance that this power, if it is given, will be used properly, fairly and in the best interests of the people I represent.
As well, the Department has power to restrict fisheries in certain bays and in certain sections of certain bays. That power will be enshrined in this legislation. My friend, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate, alluded to the fact that certain small-boat fishermen and certain inshore fishermen have been at the mercy of larger vessels, of herring seiners and even of long liners that fish in the same grounds. A man with a 45-foot or 60-foot long liner can fish in the same area as a man with an 18 or 25-foot boat. There are inequalities.
The Hon. Member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception alluded in his answer to the fact that between human beings there are jealousies and apprehensions. That is true but the Government is there to see that all people are treated fairly whether they are small-boat fishermen or large-boat fishermen. I hope that this power will be used to see that those who are disadvantaged, who do not have the larger vessels and do not have access to the deep sea fishery are protected by this law and that herring seiners and long liners are somehow restricted in their ability to fish small inshore stocks in small inshore regions.
March 6, 1985

If we are to give more power as this Bill does to the Government and the officials, I would ask how we are going to assure ourselves that the power is shared equally by the federal Government, the provincial Government and the fishermen themselves. There is only so much power to go around. If power is given to one group, it is automatically taken from another. I repeat that the Premier of Newfoundland has said that the fishery is very important to us. He has asked from time to time for more control over the Newfoundland fishery. There is no assurance here that he will get the kind of input that he requires. Moreover, there is no assurance here that the fishermen themselves who are most affected will have any more control over their own lives. I worry about the acquisition of more power by officials because I fear that it means less power to fishermen, those wose lives are most affected.
In his speech the Minister spoke about a fisheries policy and the 200-mile limit. I second his thoughts on those matters. The 200-mile limit has been a godsend to us in Newfoundland. I am proud that it was this Party that brought in the 200-mile limit. As a result of that measure, the fish stocks off Newfoundland and Labrador are now in much better shape than they were previously.
The 200-mile limit and the fisheries policy has been put in place. We will have to wait to see what the position is of the present Government on the utilization of those fish stocks and the processing of the fish that is caught. This Bill tells us nothing about what the policy of the Government or the Minister is with regard to the prosecution of the fishery.
I would like to see a management policy brought forward at an early stage. I particularly want to know what the Minister will do, when he will have the legal power to allocate stocks, about the allocation of certain stocks to what is known as resource-short plants. Following on the recommendations of the Kirby report, the Government adopted certain policies. One of those recommendations which was accepted was that an allocation of fish stocks be put aside for what is known as resource-short plants. There were plants in certain areas that had access to the deep sea fishery but there were plants in other areas, like the northeast coast of Newfoundland, that did not have access to deep sea fisheries at the time and were dependent on the inshore fishery. If the inshore fishery were to fail for any reason, those plants would be in serious economic trouble and people would be laid off. There must be allocations to those small inshore plants from the deep sea fishery. I would like to know what the Government and the Ministry will do about that.
I would like a fisheries policy brought forward at the earliest possible opportunity. I believe the Minister is a well-meaning and sincere Minister. I hope that we will be able to have a full discussion with him as to the nature of his policy. So far, if we are to judge by the Government's record, the policies have not been all that great. What we in my province have seen in the fisheries so far is cut-backs which have inhibited the ability of fishermen to carry on their livelihood.
The economic statement dealt with a number of things that will create hardship for the fishermen in my area. What about
Fisheries Act
the announcement of the possible cut-backs in unemployment insurance, for example? This is not the time to announce further restrictions on unemployment insurance. We have had a failure in the inshore fishery this year and after some prodding, the Government finally came forward with an amount of $6 million to help those people who did not receive the benefits that they required to carry on through the winter. That amount is inadequate. There are fishermen in small communities in Newfoundland who are still not able to draw unemployment insurance this year because the amount of $6 million which was made available after some prodding is inadequate. Now is no time to announce further restrictions on unemployment insurance.
As well, the Government cancelled certain capital projects like the marine service centre that was to be built at Smokey on the Labrador coast. The Government has announced that it will privatize insurance for long liners. That, I believe, is a disastrous move because if there were private industry companies that would insure those kinds of fishing vessels, they would have been doing so all along. I know of no alternative to government support for vessel insurance. I do not think there is any alternative. When the Minister was in Newfoundland, representatives from the fishermen's union spoke to him at length about this matter and told him that it presented them with a serious problem. I encourage the Minister to take a second look at his decision to privatize fishing vessel insurance because I believe it will have a disastrous effect on small inshore fishermen.
This is no time to make cut-backs in the fisheries policy because the industry is struggling. There is a great deal of competition in the market-place and particularly in the U.S. market-place. Scandivanian countries are putting a good quality product on the United States market at a reasonable cost thus creating a great deal of competition. This is no time to exercise those cut-backs on a struggling industry. Now is the time not for cut-backs but for incentives.
I want to know what the regional policy of the Government is. How is the Government going to ensure that small fishing firms, for example, in Atlantic Canada will have a fair chance in the market-place in the future? We have not heard from the Government on that issue. What is going to be done to help Fishery Products International? That company was set up when the private sector failed and it is owned now by both the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland. I believe it is going to need a further infusion of funds if it is to be financially sound and if it is going to be able to compete in the market-place. The Government has to tell us clearly what its policy is going to be with regard to Fishery Products International and how it intends to make it a sound financial operation.
In speaking of Fishery Products International, Mr. Speaker, I want to get on to a topic which is very important to me. That is the topic I raised with the Minister yesterday, the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation. This also was a recom-

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
mendation which came out of the Kirby report and it was accepted by both the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland. There was a signed agreement in principle to set up this Northern Fisheries Development Corporation north of 50 because it is understood that there are disadvantaged fishermen in that area who need special measures. It is not good enough to leave those plants on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland, such as St. Anthony, for example, and plants along the Labrador coast, at the mercy of Fisheries Products International. I believe that after the provincial election is over-whenever the Premier decides to call it and I feel it will come very soon-certain hard decisions will have to be taken with regard to Fishery Products International which are not going to be very easy to sell in my province.
I fear certain fish plant closures. I want to make sure that the people I represent, and the people on the northern peninsula and the Labrador coast, are taken care of. I would ask the Minister not to leave those people who live and fish in the north at the mercy of the people in the south. Those plants have been marginal. In the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador we have some of the most disadvantaged fishermen anywhere in Canada. The irony is that they have some of the greatest resources off their shores. There is cod, salmon, arctic char and shrimp resources off that coast. Yet those fishermen historically have been among the most disadvantaged in Canada.
A lot has been done to improve their lot and I don't want to get into that now, but more needs to be done, particularly in terms of marketing. We must help them to market their product. The whole reason behind the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation was basically to help them mobilize their catch and to receive a better deal in the market-place.
The Minister told me yesterday that there is no guarantee that the corporation will be in place by this fishing season. He told me that the money has been reallocated somewhere else. He did tell me that he was sympathetic and that is encouraging, but I want him to be more than sympathetic. I want the Minister to give people on the northern peninsula of Newfoundland and on the coast of Labrador an assurance that he will follow through on that sympathy and that he will see that that Northern Fisheries Development Corporation is put in place, not some time in the future but this spring, before the next fishing season, because it is of paramount importance to those people. I hope the Minister will find time to consult with these people before he makes a final decision on this.
That, I think, sums up what I want to say on this Bill. It is a housekeeping Bill. It simply enshrines in law what the Department felt it could do all along. What I really want to see and what I am looking forward to is a chance to debate fisheries policy in this Chamber and in committee. Moreover, I would like a chance to see the fiscal framework of the Government so that we can put that policy into context. I would urge the Minister to bring forward that policy at the earliest possible opportunity and, of course, I would urge the Government to bring forward its fiscal statement so that we can see exactly
how the dollars and cents are going to affect those of us who live and work in Atlantic Canada.


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member if any of these problems are new, and I believe none of them is. Since none of them is new, would the Hon. Member please explain to this House why they were not addressed when he was a member of the Cabinet; when the Crown Corporation was formed to look after the fishery; when the 200-mile limit was there and the northern resource was there? Are any of these problems new? If any of them are, would he delineate those and explain why the old ones were not addressed?
The remarks just made by the Hon. Member could very well have been taken from the debate on the Bill which created the Crown corporation. They could be taken from the remarks of Hon. Members on this side of the House when they were in opposition at the time the Bill was passed through the House and through committee. I appreciate the tone in which the Hon. Member has presented his remarks, but what is new?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, these are excellent questions. What is new, of course, is that there has been a suggestion that unemployment insurance will be restricted. That is new. There have been cut-backs in small craft harbours allocations, particularly in the $2 million infrastructure which was to be installed at Smokey. That is new. We had agreed to it; the present Government cancelled it. The fishing vessel insurance is going to be privatized. That is new. The Government was supporting it before. There was a government scheme to insure fishing vessels, which was the old policy. The new policy is that the Government will not do that but will hand it over to private enterprise. These are all new measures.
To speak particularly to the issue of the Northern Fisheries Development Corporation, the history of it is as follows. St. Anthony in particular was always a marginal plant under Fishery Products, fueled and supplied by the inshore fishery. It always lost money. As a matter of fact, it lost so much money that Fishery Products was going to close the plant down. The Government of Canada said; "We don't want that plant to close. It is the only receiver of fish products in that area of the northern peninsula so it must not close". So the Government of Canada under the then Minister of Fisheries, Mr. LeBlanc, who comes from the same province as the Hon. Member, said that he would ask the Canadian Saltfish Corporation if it would intervene. We had a great deal of trouble because the Province of Newfoundland got very upset that there was a federal intrusion into a provincial jurisdiction. It even threatened not to issue the fish processing licence for that plant.
However, that was overcome and the Canadian Saltfish Corporation took over that plant for a year. It ran the plant well and for the first time in history it broke even. The recommendation coming out of the Kirby report was that a Northern Fisheries Development Corporation be set up. We had the previous experience of the Canadian Saltfish Corporation. We had the vehicle in place and our idea-certainly my idea-was to allow the Canadian Saltfish Corporation to
March 6, 1985

operate that plant. But again, although the Government of Newfoundland signed an agreement in principle to set up a Northern Fisheries Development Corporation, it would not agree to have the Canadian Saltfish Corporation run it as such, or a subsidiary thereof. So negotiations have been going on with the Province of Newfoundland for all of that time to see if both Governments could come to an agreement as to how that corporation would be set up. I have seen nothing on paper in terms of a proposal from the Government of Newfoundland.
To answer the question directly, that is why action has not been taken. We were prepared to move. Indeed, we allocated $15 million for that particular project which, I gather now, has been reallocated to some other area or some other project. It is no longer there, although the Minister says, to give him his due, that he is sympathetic, and certainly if arrangements are concluded he will seek funds. I take him at his word. I hope that is a fair answer, Mr. Speaker, to what I believe is a very good question.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, two things are not new; he has made that very clear. Number one, with respect to public insurance versus private insurance, fishermen's organizations and clubs found that they could get better coverage from private sector insurance. Yes, they did.


Bill Rompkey: Well, you ask Richard Cashin.


Fred Alward McCain: I am not interested in what Richard Cashin said. You know as well as I do the attitude he has taken on various occasions. He did not support either you or this side of the House.


Bill Rompkey: But he does represent the fishermen.


Fred Alward McCain: There is a club in my constituency, so I know what I am talking about, which went the private route as a group for private insurance. They got their boats insured for replacement cost, which the public Act never would grant at any time. They accepted the value of the vessel as submitted by the manufacturer and the fisherman and insured the boat for that amount at less than the cost of public insurance. As long as there is that capability in the private sector, I submit it is not very logical for the public sector to continue the insurance unless it is prepared to match rates and coverage.


Bill Rompkey: Two different experiences. It is not the same thing.


Fred Alward McCain: All right, but you mentioned Cashin and he goes the club route.


Bill Rompkey: Let's not say Cashin; let's say the Newfoundland Fish, Food and Allied Workers' Union.


Fred Alward McCain: I submit that if they go the club route, or the union route which Mr. Cashin is associated with, then private insurance may very well give you, as it did in my constituency, better coverage for less money.
Fisheries Act


Bill Rompkey: That is not the track record.


Fred Alward McCain: That is the existing track record, my friend. You speak of what you know and let me do the same thing without argument.
The second thing is there may have been a change in the amount of money for small craft harbours, but I want to tell you it has been awfully scarce in certain constituencies under the former Government and very plentiful in others. I hope this might be changed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Would the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey) like another comment?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, no self-respecting politician would ever turn down the floor when it is offered by such a gracious person as yourself.
The two experiences, Mr. Speaker, are completely different. 1 appreciate that the Hon. Member speaks whereof he knows. I speak whereof I know, and that is what politics and representative government are all about. But the track record in Newfoundland is that there has not been that kind of support from the private sector for fishing vessel insurance at reasonable prices. The Government has provided the insurance and it is the position taken by the Fishermen's Union in Newfoundland, a very strong, powerful and large union, that this should not be changed. The Government should not depart from public support for fishing vessel insurance. To give it over to the private sector would be disastrous for people in a struggling industry at the present time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The period of questions and comments is now terminated.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to place a few remarks on the record regarding Bill C-32. Before doing so I would like to say that I think that Members on both sides are very pleased with the appointment of the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser). There are great expectations all across the country because he has demonstrated in his years in this Chamber that when he takes on a task, he does it in a very sincere, honest and forthright way. I can certainly say that I have great respect for him and at the same time I have great expectations.
The matter of expectations is something I think the House has to look at in terms of Bill C-32. We have been requesting the appearance of the Minister before the committee, not only regarding Bill C-32 but also concerning the west coast salmon treaty, something which has very severe implications for some parts of my constituency and requires a great deal more evaluation than it has been given by our committee. Another matter has to do with insurance but we have not had the Minister in front of the committee on either of these issues. I know the Parliamentary Secretary is here and I am sure he would agree it would be inappropriate and inopportune to cancel the commercial fishing insurance program, and I think

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
that is how it will stay. But again we would like to hear from the Minister.
The Government side raised the problem of small craft harbours. We would like to know why vessels under 45 feet on the East Coast do not pay any berthage fees, yet all the fishermen I represent have been told their rates are going to be doubled. If I heard the Parliamentary Secretary correctly, he has just said that the rates in British Columbia are going to be brought into line with those on the East Coast very soon and I am pleased to hear that.
There are a couple of Trojan horse clauses in Bill C-32 which I think the House has to look at much more carefully than perhaps even the Minister has looked at them so far. Looking at the purposes clause, the first part, 2.1(a), provides for the conservation and protection of fish and waters frequented by fish. I think that is reasonable and expected. Part (b) is to provide for the proper management, allocation and control of the seacoast fisheries of Canada.
There we start to see the first wording of the Trojan horse clause. We find a distinction within the purposes clause of the Bill between the seacoast fishery and the inland fisheries. I intend to spend a few moments dealing with that.
Then, of course, Part (c), which is the contentious part and a point the Minister spent some time on relating to the Collier decisions. It refers to ensuring a continuing supply of fish and to maintaining and developing the economic and social benefits from the use of fish for fishermen and others employed in the Canadian seacoast fishing industry and for others whose livelihood depends in whole or in part on seacoast fishing, and for the people of Canada. That relates directly to the two Collier decisions.
I think the Minister outlined quite well the two decisions and I would just like to put a few remarks on the record regarding them. The first case involved the Fishing Vessel Owners' Association of B.C., the Pacific Coast Salmon Seiners Association and the Prince Rupert Fishing Vessel Owners' Association, and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In that case Mr. Justice Collier granted an injunction preventing the Department from setting separate salmon quotas for seiners and gillnetters, prohibiting the Government from allocating the resource between gear types.
Strict interpretation of the Fisheries Act would then seem to say that all groups would have equal access to stocks over an equal area. The act gives the Department the power to enforce regulations for the preservation and conservation of the resource, but not to give preference to one user group over another on either social or economic grounds. Whatever the proper wording would be to give all due deference to Justice Collier and the Federal Court, I would side with the Minister in that I do not think a constitutional challenge would be successful once the amendment was in place with that wording.
The second case involved the Gulf Trollers Association of British Columbia versus the Department. In August of last year Mr. Justice Collier upheld the Association's application
to quash seven Government orders dated April 16 which permitted commercial fishing between July 1 and August 31, and at the same time allowing the sport fishers to operate year around. In effect this was allocating the resource by giving preference to one user group over another.
The Federal Court judge did not accept the Government's argument that it had federal power to manage and control the fisheries for the benefit of Canadians as distinct from preservation considerations. 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 sport fishers. The conservation motive was at the ultimate expense of the commercial Gulf Trollers. The preference, the judge stated, was based on socio-economic considerations which he determined to be beyond the Department's permissible constitutional powers.
I would not want to put words into Justice Collier's mouth, Mr. Speaker, but it seems to me that what he was trying to say was that it was beyond statutory or legislative powers as opposed to constitutional. The Minister touched on the very delicate dilemma this country would find itself in if it was impossible for different Ministries, either at the federal or provincial levels or in fact at the municipal or aboriginal self-government levels, to manage the resource for social or economic reasons. I think we would have a rather chaotic Constitution which would be the same length as the Income Tax Act, some 34 feet in length, if we had constitutional debates about the ability of Parliament to pass statutes to allow the division of such things as the fishery.
I would like to deal with what I consider to be the Trojan horse clauses of this Bill which make it so important for the Minister to come before the committee to explain. In Clause 1 he added "portions of fish". That is quite understandable. He has also added "marine plants and portions thereof'. I think that is good. There has been a debate in British Columbia as to whether the Government of B.C. can issue kelp harvesting permits and that type of thing. I think this will certainly clarify that.
Clause 2.1(d) says:
to provide, in cooperation with the provinces, for the proper management, allocation and control of the inland fisheries of Canada.
It is quite clear from some available judgments that once you get out of tidal waters you are getting into inland waters. The Minister must tell the committee and those interested in this particular matter exactly what his intention is in bringing the provinces in in terms of "the proper management, allocation and control". I am sure many Members of the House are aware that under the west coast salmon treaty on the Fraser river there is a very specific, internationally recognized allocation of 400,000 pieces for the native food fishery on the Fraser River system. That same allocation is not found on any river system in B.C. other that the Fraser. In British Columbia we will find ourselves with a government which will not recognize
March 6, 1985

aboriginal rights or title. In fact, it will not even appoint a Minister responsible for that matter.
How can discussions regarding inland fisheries possibly proceed with that kind of wording inserted? The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has a responsibility to come before the committee and explain fully why he has added that particular wording and what the implications are for negotiations regarding the native food fishery in Canada and possibly, in the future, inland commercialized fisheries of native people, which is an aboriginal right recognized in the Constitution.
I would like to discuss some of the other difficulties we are faced with, not having had the Minister before the committee. The basic problem with the Bill is that we cannot discuss these things with the Minister but must discuss them in Parliament before the public of Canada. The buy-back is crucial. The Minister is on record, as are many other Conservatives who were elected to this place, as saying that there will be a $100 million buy-back within the B.C. fishing industry this year. It is not included in the Estimates. I assume that the money will be found somewhere. Perhaps it will come from the Department of Transport or another department. We are eager to hear from the Minister where the money will come from.
The second matter is the $200 million salmon enhancement program. These amendments dovetail with the possible implications of the salmon enhancement program. This basically has to do with the division of stock on the B.C. coast and in the Maritimes of Canada, whether it be lobster, salmon, crab, oolichans, geoducks or kelp which is included in this amendment. We must have some understanding of the direction the Department is taking with these major agenda items which will have an effect on the global stock productions.
I would like to spend a moment on one of the key problems. We do not know how soon the money for the buy-back or the salmon enhancement program will come. We do not know what the implications of these clauses will be in terms of consitutional negotiations with our aboriginal people. We do not have a clear understanding of why the Minister smuggled in an amendment to paragraph 34(m) which says:
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.
This power is beyond anything anyone in the House has yet imagined. This is government by regulation. Someone who is hired for 30 days by DFO working out of Come-By-Chance, Prince Rupert, or Tofino could well make a sudden decision that you cannot keep Chinook under 50 pounds, or that a particular creek is going to be closed, or that lobsters cannot be taken for some particular reason. These kinds of authorizations should be far more specific and explicit rather than merely putting in a clause which allows a person working for DFO to do anything. It directly affects the income of everyone involved in the industry.
This is really the crux of the matter. We do not know about the insurance, salmon enhancement, the buy-back, the consti-
Fisheries Act
tutional implications of the west coast treaty or of this amendment.
However, the other very serious and chronic problem of the Department with regard to the industry itself must be addressed by the House. We do not have a good enough understanding of what the maximum potential spawning yield or the maximum habitat potential of the streams is. We do not understand what the maximum return of the various wild stocks is or what the implication of adding hatchery stocks to those stocks is going to be. We do not know about these things in terms of kelp, oolichans or a lot of other species. There has not been enough time, energy or research effort put into determining what the global stocks can be. We know that they are now devastated on the East and West Coasts. We need to know how we can develop the resource and what our maximum yield and utilization can be so that we can discover what the social and economic impacts are for the different gear types. If negotiations are going to take place this year with aboriginal groups in the country, we need to know what a realistic negotiated settlement can be that can then be constitutionally protected.
In order to do that we need proper tagging programs and proper stream and creek evaluation. We need a firm understanding of the implications of major projects such as the CN twin-tracking. We will then not have to deal with the no net loss policies and the net gain because we will know where the dollars are going to be spent and what the returns are going to be much more accurately than we do now. We will not have to worry about the voodoo-like predictions of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
Fishermen often wonder whether specific areas will be open, whether they will be able to take pinks, whether the Gulf will be closed, and how many herring they will be allowed to take and what size they must be. It is treated very much like voodoo, Mr. Speaker. The fishermen on the coast do not know from day to day whether there will be a buy-back. They do not know whether there will be an opening or closing. They do not know if their insurance will be taken away.
The Department has been placed in that state of chaos by a run of Ministers who, I firmly believe, did not put the kind of energy into the Department that was required. I think that the present Minister has that potential, but he needs the support of his front-bench colleagues to get the cash. I am sure that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will be fighting in Cabinet to ensure that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans gets that funding.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What about the Minister of Transport?


James Ross Fulton: The Minister of Transport needs the cash too, he says. However, Fisheries and Oceans is crucial.
I will conclude my remarks by pointing out that before Parliament should consider passing this Bill, it and the Minister should appear before the committee. The Minister should explain its contents and the constitutional and statutory implications of it as related to the Collier decision. He should

March 6, 1985
Fisheries Act
explain what he is going to do in the future with regard to the other issues I raised this afternoon.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it six o'clock, I would like to say to the Hon. Member that he has three minutes remaining when the Bill is presented to the
House again, as well as the ten-minute question and answer period.
It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, February 26, 1985, this House stands adjourned until Friday next at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1). The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.

Friday, March 8, 1985